# Russell Brand on Revolution



## Jean-Luc (Oct 25, 2013)

I'm surprised there's not a separate thread on this since everybody's discussing it everywhere else.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 25, 2013)

pogofish


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

There is.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 25, 2013)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2013)

'kinnel; how many threads will there be when the revolution actually starts?

And no, I know it won't be televised, you hipster feckkers...


----------



## mwgdrwg (Oct 25, 2013)

Well, his name is Jean-Luc


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 25, 2013)




----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 25, 2013)

brogdale said:


> 'kinnel; how many threads will there be when the revolution actually starts?
> 
> And no, I know it won't be televised, you hipster feckkers...


1000s, Urban is <the> forum for all aspects of revolution discussion & attracts the best mix of fruitcakes on the internet... that song is well out of date, of course future revolutions wil be televised, we'eel all be hipsters come the glorious day, except of course those 'first against the wall'...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2013)

SaskiaJayne said:


> 1000s, Urban is <the> forum for all aspects of revolution discussion & attracts the best mix of fruitcakes on the internet... that song is well out of date, of course future revolutions wil be televised, we'eel all be hipsters come the glorious day, except of course those 'first against the wall'...



 Of course....'cepting that bit about being out of date.



I take there have been many threads before about who _exactly _would be the first up against the wall?


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Of course....'cepting that bit about being out of date.
> 
> 
> 
> I take there have been many threads before about who _exactly _would be the first up against the wall?



Masons?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

The revolution will be filmed at least.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 25, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I take there have been many threads before about who _exactly _would be the first up against the wall?



Many. But none about who should be detained first come the emergency.  Dot Communist is my pick.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 25, 2013)

After the revolution hairspray will no longer be conflated with relevance or talent.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 25, 2013)

Oh! & the revolution will go better with coke, its daft to suggest it won't.


----------



## Ultimate (Oct 27, 2013)

Paxman: You want a revolution, but you don't even bother to vote?

Seems Paxman doesn't quite get this revolution lark.

Returning officer: "So the winning candidate is Morrissey Smith of the Revolutionary Party. And therefore this place, like in all the other constituencies in which the Party has won a majority, shall be burned to the ground."

Revolutionary Party win the election - party leader goes to Buckingham Palace to seek the Queen's permission to evict her from the Palace, convert 10 Downing Street into a dope farm and sell the Houses of Parliament to Tesco.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 19, 2014)

Word is that Russell Brand is writing a Manifesto! out in time for Christmas


----------



## Santino (Mar 19, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Word is Russell Brand is writing a Manifesto! out in time for Christmas


You mean 'My Manifesty-westy'?


----------



## Santino (Mar 19, 2014)

Or perhaps 'My Struggley-Wuggle'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 19, 2014)

I read his bio. And there is a standout rapey bit in it. He says along the lines of 'I can sometimes look at a woman and she looks at me and we know what will happen'

ok.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 19, 2014)

"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. ...so I pulled down my trousers and pants*"




* was his catchphrase a decade ago


----------



## 8ball (Mar 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I read his bio. And there is a standout rapey bit in it. He says along the lines of 'I can sometimes look at a woman and she looks at me and we know what will happen'
> 
> ok.


 
Can't be so bad if that's the standout rapey bit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> Can't be so bad if that's the standout rapey bit.




its better than Chris Moyles bio which is actually offensively shit.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its better than Chris Moyles bio which is actually offensively shit.


 
Is that a bio or an auto-bio?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is that a bio or an auto-bio?




his own work. It starts off well enough but turns to shit very quickly


----------



## 8ball (Mar 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> his own work. It starts off well enough but turns to shit very quickly


 
Ah - the booky-wook.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> his own work. It starts off well enough but turns to shit very quickly



no agenda here at all, but as a matter of interest, what made you want to read the Moyles bio ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 19, 2014)

cantsin said:


> no agenda here at all, but as a matter of interest, what made you want to read the Moyles bio ?



I was stuck at my brothers house, a man who can play 1000 tunes on his keyboard but has a library that would make a man weep for its paucity.

Luckily Global Stoner turned up with weed and booze and we smashed it


dark times


----------



## rekil (Mar 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I read his bio. And there is a standout rapey bit in it. He says along the lines of 'I can sometimes look at a woman and she looks at me and we know what will happen'
> 
> ok.


She asks him if he has a loyalty card. He says "no, you have to ask that everytime don't you?" Then she says "fraid so, £23.54 please", then "thankyou, bye"


----------



## 8ball (Mar 19, 2014)

copliker said:


> She asks him if he has a loyalty card. He says "no, you have to ask that everytime don't you?" Then she says "fraid so, £23.54 please", then "thankyou, bye"


 
Something similar happened to me last week.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I read his bio. And there is a standout rapey bit in it. He says along the lines of 'I can sometimes look at a woman and she looks at me and we know what will happen'
> 
> ok.



Sadly it seems to have a bit of truth about it. For reasons I can't fathom the Essex Rasputin appears to be like catnip for some ladeez.

It wouldn't shock me to find him get a knock from Operation 'Oak tree' in about 25 years. 

But it was a different world in the early Noughties....


----------



## 8ball (Mar 19, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> It wouldn't shock me to find him get a knock from Operation 'Oak tree' in about 25 years.


 
Are they raising the age of consent or something?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 21, 2014)

*Brand said: “People keep asking me how The Revolution will work. "We all want to bring down the government and establish a personal and global utopia but how?" they ask.
“Well in this book, I'm going to explain it. Having accrued the greatest wisdom known to man (by conducting interviews, watching DVDs, reading books, thinking and looking at the sky) I am now able to put in a simple, accessible book(y wook) the solution to internal and external turmoil. And about time too.”*


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 21, 2014)

Mr Revolution, by Roger Hargreaves.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

Whose in charge of marketing on this one?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2014)

paxman


----------



## likesfish (Mar 21, 2014)

You mock but in fifty years time people will be having pointless slanging matches about brandism


----------



## ska invita (Mar 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Whose in charge of marketing on this one?


"Century will publish the new book in hardback in October 2014 with an Arrow paperback in 2015."

...so step one to the Revolution is publish your best-selling manfiesto with a publisher in the Random House Group, in order to swell the coffers of the Groups owners, German media giants Bertelsmann (Revenue €16.065 billion (2012)), who in turn will use those profits to fund their political campaigning as the Bertelsmann Foundation, who have "promoted neoliberal ideas such as an increase of competition in education and research and for the introduction of tuition fees to the German university system".


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 21, 2014)

Jazzz would be pleased ....


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 22, 2014)

Cosmic simpleton  interviews Daid lcke


----------



## ska invita (Mar 22, 2014)

I WAS going to say that one thing I really respect about Noam Chomsky is that he sticks with left publishers, when surely the big houses (now firm parts of bigger conglomerates) would jump at publishing his books...but now i look again, of his last few books theres quite a few Penguin/Penguin imprints - Penguin also owned by Bertelsmann....


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 22, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I WAS going to say that one thing I really respect about Noam Chomsky is that he sticks with left publishers, when surely the big houses (now firm parts of bigger conglomerates) would jump at publishing his books...but now i look again, of his last few books theres quite a few Penguin/Penguin imprints - Penguin also owned by Bertelsmann....



Chomsky's a tax dodger isn't he?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2014)

cunning linguist


----------



## yield (Mar 22, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I WAS going to say that one thing I really respect about Noam Chomsky is that he sticks with left publishers, when surely the big houses (now firm parts of bigger conglomerates) would jump at publishing his books...but now i look again, of his last few books theres quite a few Penguin/Penguin imprints - Penguin also owned by Bertelsmann....


Penguin Random House is joint owned by Pearson. Not that they're any better than Bertelsmann.


DownwardDog said:


> Chomsky's a tax dodger isn't he?


Yes think so. And his books are under copyright.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 22, 2014)

yield said:


> Penguin Random House is joint owned by Pearson. Not that they're any better than Bertelsmann.
> 
> Yes think so. And his books are under copyright.



I thought the copyright was held in his kids name so he wasn't liable for tax or something?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2014)

Spoiler: Is this the sign for the start...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

Is he 12? 

Has he _I love jemmima_ on his satchel?


----------



## rekil (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

Graeber already thinks he's a star - the ego on him when he's interviewed is Brandesque. Could be a clash.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Graeber already thinks he's a star - the ego on him when he's interviewed is Brandesque. Could be a *clash*.



Turning rebellion into .....


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

trousers!


----------



## rekil (Apr 17, 2014)

Graeber used to dress up in the Ya Basta gear didn't he? Once more into the white boiler suit breeches.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

Here he is - undercover - on the left asking for directions to the TAZ


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 17, 2014)

Guido goes in for the kill.....

http://order-order.com/2014/04/17/russell-brands-marxist-facepalm/


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Guido goes in for the kill.....
> 
> http://order-order.com/2014/04/17/russell-brands-marxist-facepalm/


 too easy.


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 17, 2014)

*Edited as I have sworn to be nice to people this week*


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 17, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Guido goes in for the kill.....
> 
> http://order-order.com/2014/04/17/russell-brands-marxist-facepalm/



He's entertaining and a very cunning linguist, I will give him that. I can't understand though why he doesn't donate all surplus income to worthy charities... or maybe he's saving it to fill milk bottles with petrol and wheel barrows with bricks when the revolution starts.

Edit: quoted the wrong post initially.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 17, 2014)

why does any one care what Russell Brand says?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 17, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> why does any one care what Russell Brand says?



Because he waxes lyrical about socialist ideology whilst being a multi millionaire.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 17, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> Because he waxes lyrical about socialist ideology whilst being a multi millionaire.



Am I the only one who thinks he might just be an egotistical celebrity wanker? Does anyone take him seriously?


----------



## amonkeyscousin? (Apr 17, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Am I the only one who thinks he might just be an egotistical celebrity wanker? Does anyone take him seriously?



He just strikes me as a caricature.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 17, 2014)

Jesus Christ he has 7.69 million twitter followers ! World's gone mad.


----------



## Limerick Red (Apr 17, 2014)

I was involved in / forced to, do some workplace training about communication/corporate image... One of the tasks we had to do in teams was to arrange about 15 photographs of personalities in order of their credibility, the usual suspects were the re, Cameron, Boris, the queen , Beckham, hodgeson etc. of all the 6 groups of about 10, including mine put brand at the top of the most credible. Maybe worth pointing out/maybe not there are only about 5 Brits on that 30 people.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 18, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Jesus Christ he has 7.69 million twitter followers ! World's gone mad.


I didn't know Jesus was on twitter! #I'mVeryCross!


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I didn't know Jesus was on twitter! #I'mVeryCross!



Briiliant - that's a Good Friday Joke !


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 18, 2014)

#MyDadCreatedMeAsASacrificeToHimselfFromHimselfToCreateALoopholeToAProblemHeCreated


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Turning rebellion into .....



To be fair, you might be reminded of The Clash's "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" with regard to Russell Brand, but I'm more reminded of a couple of lines from Crass's "Bloody Revolutions":

"_You talk about revolution, well that's fine,
but what are you going to be doing, come the time_?"

Because, from what I can make out, Brand wants to be a theorist of revolution, part of the vanguard, rather than someone manning the barricades and risking getting their head smashed in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Am I the only one who thinks he might just be an egotistical celebrity wanker? Does anyone take him seriously?



You're not the only one. 
I think he's "useful", though, insofar as he may have slightly broadened the ambit of what some people view as acceptable political engagement.
Apart from that, I think his position as a creature of capitalism allows way too much of what he says to be neutralised by those whose interests are served by neutralising such ideas.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2014)

amonkeyscousin? said:


> He just strikes me as a caricature.



I reckon that's true of most "personalities", to be fair, but he does seem to overplay the whole "cheeky but eloquent chappy" _schtick_ to an alarming degree.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2014)

I was hoping for some kind of non combat role too, tbf.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 18, 2014)

I think he's someone that believes all the krishna consciousness woo woo he spouts. He's pals with Icke ffs. I don't think he has any real answers: he lives in hollyweird and has lots of money. He might as well fly around with Kodos and Kang for how seriously he can expect to be taken.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Guido goes in for the kill.....
> 
> http://order-order.com/2014/04/17/russell-brands-marxist-facepalm/






> Directorships of several companies which allegedly use tax efficient financial arrangements



Will this be, he as an artist, etc, is set up as a company?, can't imagine he is a director of any other one.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I think he's someone that believes all the krishna consciousness woo woo he spouts. He's pals with Icke ffs. I don't think he has any real answers: he lives in hollyweird and has lots of money. He might as well fly around with Kodos and Kang for how seriously he can expect to be taken.


 and yet, he is being taken seriously.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2014)

It's companies set up to take advantage of tax breaks for British film making that labour brought in.  I think they're now gone. But it's total unashamed tax avoidance. Loads of rich people suddenly investing in films that were never made and were never intended to be made.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Apr 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> and yet, he is being taken seriously.


In a very broad sense he is right in what he says regarding a revolution. We do need some kind of very large scale change.

But he doesn't seem to want to do anything and is just an easy target for right wing twats like Shit Staines


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2014)

Is he? Looks a bit desperate to me. None of it's a smoking gun.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> I was hoping for some kind of non combat role too, tbf.



Tea-maker General?


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

Well, someones got to make the tea. It's a big burden, but I reckon my shoulders are broad enough.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

What biscuits you got?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2014)

Garibaldi's


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

Pah! Thin and too crispy. But bendy. Which is a plus.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

Them fruit shortcakes, and some custard creams. And Chocolate digestives for the feircest class warriors.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Garibaldi's


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2014)

Brand is giving the money he was awarded by the Sun for libel to the HJC, bitter ironies...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> Brand is giving the money he was awarded by the Sun for libel to the HJC, bitter ironies...


This was year ago btw and  was 'some'.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

So...I decide I wanna join the revolution...and I find that I'm to go along to Purley Way ("Valley Park") 'Vue' and just listen...


...after I've fronted up my £12.50....or....if I'm feeling extra revolutionary....my £14.50 'for the VIP' seats.

Presumably there's some very complex, technical reasons why this 'event' couldn't just be streamed to the people for free?
FFS


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So...I decide I wanna join the revolution...and I find that I'm to go along to Purley Way ("Valley Park") 'Vue' and just listen...
> 
> 
> ...after I've fronted up my £12.50....or....if I'm feeling extra revolutionary....my £14.50 'for the VIP' seats.
> ...




12.50 gets you freshfaced Owen Jones as well.

The revolution will not be streamed.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 12.50 gets you freshfaced Owen Jones as well.
> 
> The revolution will not be streamed.


 Excellent; another opportunity to post this in this thread


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2014)

I like that this is in conjunction with guardian membership as well. Pushing all my buttons.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 17, 2014)

Interesting what form Russell's Rev will take. Given the beard and the multiple women I imagine he's going to reveal his support for ISIS.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Interesting what form Russell's Rev will take. Given the beard and the multiple women I imagine he's going to reveal his support for ISIS.


 
I think you're a little confused; it was Jones that went 'up' to Oxford.


----------



## poului (Oct 19, 2014)

Lydon's been having a go at him, I hear. His response, to backpedal with increasingly shit explanations of his "don't vote" interview with Paxman.

Stirring stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2014)

Lydon, the face of some fucking butter company. vive la revolution


----------



## poului (Oct 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Lydon, the face of some fucking butter company. vive la revolution



I was focusing more on Brand's reaction than the credibility of Lydon himself. What with it being a Brand thread 'n all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2014)

both cunts


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> both cunts


with books out


----------



## 8115 (Oct 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Lydon, the face of some fucking butter company. vive la revolution


Lydon has more credibility left even after going on I'm a celebrity than Brand ever had at the pinnacle of his career.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 19, 2014)

8115 said:


> Lydon has more credibility left even after going on I'm a celebrity than Brand ever had at the pinnacle of his career.


Then he flogged some butter.

After reforming the SeX Pistols years ago for the same reason. 

He's not as smart as he thinks he is. At all. He's just a comedy angry shouty twat.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

beautiful.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Then he flogged some butter.
> 
> After reforming the SeX Pistols years ago for the same reason.
> 
> He's not as smart as he thinks he is. At all. He's just a comedy angry shouty twat.


You think he reformed the Sex Pistols to sell butter? Interesting theory. 

And for the record the butter advert was to get PIL back working again.

That last line is so tempting. But i'm tired.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2014)

he should be condemned for trying to reform PIL imo


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> ...He's not as smart as he thinks he is. At all. He's just a comedy angry shouty twat.



Well, we all know someone like that, don't we?

(sorry butchersapron, but you had your chance and turned it down)


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You think he reformed the Sex Pistols to sell butter? Interesting theory...



The first time as history to sell trousers, the second time as farce to sell butter


----------



## rekil (Oct 19, 2014)

Get your revolution trousers on comrades. This is a little bit monster meeting.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 19, 2014)

Polly Toynbee really embarassed herself during that 'interview'. But then most people do because for someone reasont hey are intimidated by Lydon. All he does is talk over people. I'd dearly love for someone to just tell him t fuck off. FUCK OFF LYDON, and the Pistols too, bunch of homophobic pricks who couldn't plauy a note.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2014)

copliker said:


> Get your revolution trousers on comrades. This is a little bit monster meeting.
> 
> View attachment 62658



Is that some sort of commitment to pay the legal costs of folk tempted to have a go?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2014)

copliker said:


> Get your revolution trousers on comrades. This is a little bit monster meeting.
> 
> View attachment 62658




when virgin cinema first opened in northampton they were so poorly staffed you could swan in for free during 'off peak' times. Even if that was still a thing possible, I would not be going to see the hairy twat do his shtick. Or jones.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 19, 2014)

"Storm the cinemas" ?  

Fuck off Owen.


----------



## rekil (Oct 19, 2014)

I am unconvinced that bullying my way past 19 year old Polish women to listen to 2 hours of "Dear ol' Thomassy Piketts, ol' Piketty, Licketty, Rollitty, Flicketty, has been given a right kicketty by the right wing" would achieve anything other than marking the unsurpassable lowpoint of my life.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2014)

'God Save the Queen' was an amazingly provocative statement. And a great tune. And plenty more besides.

Lydon truly inspired people to live and think differently. He may be a bit of a pantomime dame with his eye on his pension, but I'll give him a pass on that.

What has Russell done by comparison? Shag around like a 70's DJ in eyebrow raising ways.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> and the Pistols too, bunch of homophobic pricks who couldn't plauy a note.



I always liked Chris Spedding!


----------



## brogdale (Oct 20, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> 'God Save the Queen' was an amazingly provocative statement. And a great tune. And plenty more besides.
> 
> Lydon truly inspired people to live and think differently. He may be a bit of a pantomime dame with his eye on his pension, but I'll give him a pass on that.
> 
> What has Russell done by comparison? Shag around like a 70's DJ in eyebrow raising ways.



Agreed. Those first 4 singles certainly had an impact on the way in which this teenager of the late 70's developed his views.

But that was then....


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 20, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> I always liked Chris Spedding!


I can't respect them. They are functionally no different than One Direction in that it's the utter veneration of mediocrity. The rejection of musical competence or ability and revelling in being an unpleasant thug. 

PiL were better at least, but Lydon just doesn't make any sense when he talks and gets away with it because he intimidates people.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 20, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> What has Russell done by comparison? Shag around like a 70's DJ in eyebrow raising ways.



i agree entirely, he's a joke. I can't take any call for radical political reform when it comes from someone that looks like he belongs in a 'Confessions of a...' movie.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> I always liked Chris Spedding!


Myth!


----------



## youngian (Oct 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> i agree entirely, he's a joke. I can't take any call for radical political reform when it comes from someone that looks like he belongs in a 'Confessions of a...' movie.


And not quite as radical as Tony Booth who was in most of them.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 20, 2014)

Brand makes himself impossible to take seriously and then tries to justify it by talking some shared consciousness cockney krishna bollocks. he's either massively full of himself or grossly overcompensating.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Myth!



There is a smiley face there. I am fully aware of Spedding's work as the producer on their first demos.
He created the guitar sound that became so well known. 

http://www.chrisspedding.com/session/sp/sp1.htm


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he should be condemned for trying to reform PIL imo


Fuck off, it might not compare with _Metal Box_ but the last album was decent.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 20, 2014)

8115 said:


> Lydon has more credibility left even after going on I'm a celebrity than Brand ever had at the pinnacle of his career.



not sure how you measure 'credibility', but Lydon and Polly 'vote Lib Dem' Toynbee sneering at the very idea of  'not voting' shines a strong light on their respective political naivety/bankruptcy imo.


----------



## rekil (Oct 20, 2014)

Lydon is yet another convert to Multitudinous Positionism. See 8:40 here.



Spoiler: oh very droll


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 20, 2014)

I have no idea who Lydon votes for, if he votes in the UK. 

Doesn't Toynbee vote Labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2014)

It doesn't matter.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I can't respect them. They are functionally no different than One Direction in that it's the utter veneration of mediocrity. The rejection of musical competence or ability and revelling in being an unpleasant thug.
> 
> PiL were better at least, but Lydon just doesn't make any sense when he talks and gets away with it because he intimidates people.



C'mon this is daft. I've no wish to live in the past but the Sex Pistols produced fantastic Rock n Roll with some truly inspired lyrics.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 20, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> C'mon this is daft. I've no wish to live in the past but the Sex Pistols produced fantastic Rock n Roll with some truly inspired lyrics.


It's not for me. I've never really gotten into that kind of music.


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2014)

The sex pistols are one of the very greatest bands of all time, and anyone who doesn't recognise that deserves all those pink Floyd albums they own.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 20, 2014)

they were no clash


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 20, 2014)

The main problem I have with Brand is that I don't really get the sense he takes it seriously. When he rocks up to (EVENT) and talks to (PROTESTER) I don't really feel he's empathising or even really listening. I'm sure he does, in his own way.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 20, 2014)

Often wonder if Russell Brand had some dirt on him from his drug addiction days, or whether he's still misusing drugs secretly, he's certanly a fucking shill. Lydon is a cunt, but at least he knows how to take his drugs and is into some very good correct information especially on butter, he may be prejudiced and unpleasantat times, but he gave us God save the Queen, A fascist regime, They made you a moron - which a has provoked a lot more thought than the Brand brandy randy shite.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they were no clash



That's well observed. Two very different bands.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he should be condemned for trying to reform PIL imo



PIL without Levene and/or Wardle isn't PIL.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> PIL without Levene and/or Wardle isn't PIL.


Life goes on, it's just Brand thinks he can stop it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> I always liked Chris Spedding!



He was a halfway decent (emphasis on the halfway!) producer, and a decent guitarist. Nowhere near as good a producer as Dave Goodman, though.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 20, 2014)

I thought only Americans took the pistols seriously these days?  A culture shock when I was over there was seeing DIY punks in pistols shirts, like they were a proper punk band or something.  Some of the tunes were alright, but PIL did some better ones.

Lurpak is better than Anchor anyway.


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I thought only Americans took the pistols seriously these days?  A culture shock when I was over there was seeing DIY punks in pistols shirts, like they were a proper punk band or something.  Some of the tunes were alright, but PIL did some better ones.
> 
> Lurpak is better than Anchor anyway.


The Pistols impact and influence on music is fucking immense. Not sure what 'proper punk' is suposed to be, but very, very few bands can claim the lasting impact that the Pistols made.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> C'mon this is daft. I've no wish to live in the past but the Sex Pistols produced fantastic Rock n Roll with some truly inspired lyrics.



And that's what it's about IMO - raw rock 'n' roll. The Pistols had it, The Clash had it, Generation X had it (on and off), X-Ray Spex had it, as did many other punk, new wave and post-punk bands.
Just recently read a biography of AC/DC, and the Young brothers pretty much encapsulated their 35-odd years of success in saying that all they've ever played is rock 'n' roll for people who like rock 'n' roll.  There's nothing wrong with good rock 'n' roll. It's the comedy '50s pastiche rock 'n' roll that's shit - the Showaddywaddys of the world.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I thought only Americans took the pistols seriously these days?  A culture shock when I was over there was seeing DIY punks in pistols shirts, like they were a proper punk band or something.  Some of the tunes were alright, but PIL did some better ones.



People fixate on the music, but it was the whole package that The Pistols and many of their contemporaries had that elevated them from pub-rockers to punk rockers - the image, the lyrical content etc.



> Lurpak is better than Anchor anyway.



Country Life is better than either.


----------



## rekil (Oct 20, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> There is a smiley face there. I am fully aware of Spedding's work as the producer on their first demos.
> He created the guitar sound that became so well known.
> 
> http://www.chrisspedding.com/session/sp/sp1.htm


Joey Ramone said in a docu that when the Pistols went into the studio, they said they wanted the Ramones sound.  Joey also said he saw Phil Spector shoot the wings off a fly.

I'm pretty sure Margi Clarke's son Laurence Easeman has received a none too complimentary mention before here somewhere.





Spoiler: jeremy duns twitter machine


----------



## cantsin (Oct 20, 2014)

copliker said:


> Joey Ramone said in a docu that when the Pistols went into the studio, they said they wanted the Ramones sound.  Joey also said he saw Phil Spector shoot the wings off a fly.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Margi Clarke's son Laurence Easeman has received a none too complimentary mention before here somewhere.
> 
> View attachment 62701




so flakey anti semite / GD supporter Easeman and Tory John Bird, what's Brand up to here ?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2014)

LE


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> LE



I got bored and did some googling so I can add a little bit more to that story.

Easeman and a bunch of others became directors of a limited company at the start of the year called Albien Law Advocates Ltd. Most of them resigned as directors in April, but one of those who remained was also mentioned in that article, a certain Neil Heffey. How I don't know for sure if the following from 2008 is the same Neil Heffey, but in one of his tedious videos about being pulled over in his car (much too tedious to post here), he acknowledges working in property.



> The article begins,
> 
> SIGNS naming and shaming those who have fallen behind with their rent will be put up outside dozens of homes across Merseyside in the next few weeks as landlords feel the bite of the credit crunch.
> Neil Heffey, a partner in the firm wades in,
> ...




http://ericthefishking.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/paying-piper-at-gates-of-hell.html


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2014)

I can confirm its the same shithead, since he links to the property company from his crap youtube channel. What a delightful bunch.

edited to add...

Firescout Corporation, a Virgin Islands company, provides/provided quite a unique blend of services. Where else could you find a company designed to help people with litigation ('fighting for your freedom and liberty') nestled in with other entities involved with property management, debt collection services, and the 'Rent Dodgers Database'.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 20, 2014)

Looks like he's been making use of the new right to be forgotten, google "albion dawn" "Laurence Easeman" and it says _Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more_


----------



## cantsin (Oct 20, 2014)

elbows said:


> I can confirm its the same shithead, since he links to the property company from his crap youtube channel. What a delightful bunch.
> 
> edited to add...
> 
> Firescout Corporation, a Virgin Islands company, provides/provided quite a unique blend of services. Where else could you find a company designed to help people with litigation ('fighting for your freedom and liberty') nestled in with other entities involved with property management, debt collection services, and the 'Rent Dodgers Database'.



so just oversight from Brand ? He's got a lot staked on all this Revolution book shctick in terms of reputation etc, why would he have a
 fairly  open, well know and connected fash featured in the book / at the events ?


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2014)

cantsin said:


> so just oversight from Brand ? He's got a lot staked on all this Revolution book shctick in terms of reputation etc, why would he have a
> fairly  open, well know and connected fash featured in the book / at the events ?



Easeman's profile on the internet isn't very high these days, so I'll have to get back to you on that one. Most of the detail I went into was in regards to Heffey.

Meanwhile, I may as well deal with someone with a higher internet profile, Chris Spivey. Since he last got some attention on this forum, he has been arrested twice. Initially for something to do with a post claiming the Lee Rigby murder was a hoax, but then he was re-arrested this month on an 'unrelated matter'. Which, according to the shrill wibbling from his conspiracy-minded supporters in recent days, appears to involve indecent images found on his computer equipment after it was removed as part of his original arrest. Of course in their minds its a stitch-up, because they are suckers.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 20, 2014)

cantsin said:


> so just oversight from Brand ? He's got a lot staked on all this Revolution book shctick in terms of reputation etc, why would he have a
> fairly  open, well know and connected fash featured in the book / at the events ?


He's a dick, he's lazy in who he associates with, he's politically naive, he doesn't have good people around him, he's more interested in easy self promotion and selling books than politics  I don't know, those are all guesses.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 20, 2014)

elbows said:


> Easeman's profile on the internet isn't very high these days, so I'll have to get back to you on that one. Most of the detail I went into was in regards to Heffey.
> 
> Meanwhile, I may as well deal with someone with a higher internet profile, Chris Spivey. Since he last got some attention on this forum, he has been arrested twice. Initially for something to do with a post claiming the Lee Rigby murder was a hoax, but then he was re-arrested this month on an 'unrelated matter'. Which, according to the shrill wibbling from his conspiracy-minded supporters in recent days, appears to involve indecent images found on his computer equipment after it was removed as part of his original arrest. Of course in their minds its a stitch-up, because they are suckers.



(was in no way doubting Easeamans some kind of fash btw, seems pretty self evident : : https://network23.org/obseceneturtle/2014/09/21/laurence-easeman-the-fascist-behind-people-vs-banks/ ) 
just surprised at Brand/those around him, he must be aware of this stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2014)

cantsin said:


> (was in no way doubting Easeamans some kind of fash btw, seems pretty self evident : : https://network23.org/obseceneturtle/2014/09/21/laurence-easeman-the-fascist-behind-people-vs-banks/ )
> just surprised at Brand/those around him, he must be aware of this stuff.


Brand is a cash cow- _get him on and we're rolling in it_ -that''s the deal for the period up to may 2015. That's all the people around him are doing. Making use of their monopoly rent while it lasts.The other stuff is local dicks getting local dicks on. Actually, looking at that again...there's some dick network that needs to exist to get dicks from liverpool on in hoxton. A sort of liberal dick networkk that can be used by etc


----------



## 8115 (Oct 20, 2014)

At the very least, the intern doing graphic design is more talented than the intern doing promotion on that shitstorm of a book launch party. Free yoga


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2014)

Spivey btw.

And here.


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Spivey btw.
> 
> And here.



I am amused that the tv station mentioned in that 2nd thread didn't survive as long as that thread was active, it was off the sky satellite by the end of that August and although it appears to have survived online for a while, its website is currently broken.

As for The Peoples Voice, the shit Icke-backed station that burnt through a huge pile of crowdfunded money in no time and then imploded in acrimony, the promised '2.0 relaunch' (minus Icke and most other original participants) seems even less likely now that even the Vimeo video on their homepage has stopped working.

Sad-faced charisma black-hole Brian Gerrish and UK Column have enjoyed far greater longevity, though they are extremely unlikely candidates to ride the Brand wave of rebellion due to their small c conservatism.

This concludes my brief look at the state of some of the dodgy 'alternative media' entities of the uk.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He was a halfway decent (emphasis on the halfway!) producer, and a decent guitarist. Nowhere near as good a producer as Dave Goodman, though.



It was meant as a joke, didn't work like it did in the NME in1976


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 21, 2014)

The People's Voice is no more?


----------



## albionism (Oct 22, 2014)

copliker said:


> Joey Ramone said in a docu that when the Pistols went into the studio, they said they wanted the Ramones sound.  Joey also said he saw Phil Spector shoot the wings off a fly.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Margi Clarke's son Laurence Easeman has received a none too complimentary mention before here somewhere.
> 
> ...



I think he could do with dropping Laurence Easeman.
http://laurenceeasemantruth.wordpre...-russell-brands-pal-nazi-sympathiser-bailiff/


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 22, 2014)

I see John Bird, the founder of The Big Issue and self-styled 'Marxist Tory', is also included on the bill.  Jesus wept.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I see John Bird, the founder of The Big Issue and self-styled 'Marxist Tory', is also included on the bill.  Jesus wept.


But the didn't dig up William Griffith Wilson thank goodness


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 22, 2014)

lol panic


----------



## Celyn (Oct 22, 2014)

Ho ho.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

editor said:


> The Pistols impact and influence on music is fucking immense. Not sure what 'proper punk' is suposed to be, but very, very few bands can claim the lasting impact that the Pistols made.


 
Doesnt stop lyndon being a prick though.

Brand and lyndon irritate me just as much as each other.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

this is good isn't it? The cancelled debate has brought Easeman's fascist leanings into focus: Brand has learned a lesson (hopefully) and more people are aware of this scumbag's half hidden fascism. Win/Win.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> this is good isn't it? The cancelled debate has brought Easeman's fascist leanings into focus: Brand has learned a lesson (hopefully) and more people are aware of this scumbag's half hidden fascism. Win/Win.


 
brands half hidden fascism or easeman's?


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

Celyn said:


> Ho ho.





sim667 said:


> Doesnt stop lyndon being a prick though.
> 
> Brand and lyndon irritate me just as much as each other.


I'd put it in this order Brand, Sim67 and then Lydon....who I actually like


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> brands half hidden fascism or easeman's?


Easeman's


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> I'd put it in this order Brand, Sim67 and then Lydon....who I actually like


 
Nice to know "sim67" comes below a butter salesman on your scale

Infact not just a butter salesman, a man who undertook a racist attack on someone iirc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> this is good isn't it? The cancelled debate has brought Easeman's fascist leanings into focus: Brand has learned a lesson (hopefully) and more people are aware of this scumbag's half hidden fascism. Win/Win.


Ah, all well and good, but what about his connection with David Icke?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> this is good isn't it? The cancelled debate has brought Easeman's fascist leanings into focus: Brand has learned a lesson (hopefully) and more people are aware of this scumbag's half hidden fascism. Win/Win.


Yep. Could/should be instructive esp with people trying to do a replay of occupy and the sort of stuff that opened the door on these freaks.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Nice to know "sim67" comes below a butter salesman on your scale


Always loved John Lydon especially when he calls Brand and his ilk cunts


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> Always loved John Lydon especially when he calls Brand and his ilk cunts


What about when he's making racist physical attacks?

They're all cunts IMO


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> What about when he's making racist physical attacks?
> 
> They're all cunts IMO


 Okereke may be confused over a lot of things, I think he lost credibility when he called the Gallagher brothers inbred


----------



## Celyn (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> But the didn't dig up William Griffith Wilson thank goodness



He could have brought along some acid to add to the fun.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

Tatchhell is claiming all the credit btw That's right peter, it was the people who've been trying to expose him for years.


@PeterTatchell
As a result of allegations & my concerns, Russell Brand has cancelled tonight's debate with Easeman & is investigating him. Good move


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> Okereke may be confused over a lot of things, I think he lost credibility when he called the Gallagher brothers inbred


Would you say _Okereke is a posh scouse twat - likened himself to Bowie ffs?_


----------



## 8ball (Oct 22, 2014)

Hmmm.. racist property developer vs foppish comedian with delusions of relevance . . . which is best . . ?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 22, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I see John Bird, the founder of The Big Issue and self-styled 'Marxist Tory', is also included on the bill.  Jesus wept.


That's guy's got issues. No pun intended.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Nice to know "sim67" comes below a butter salesman on your scale
> 
> Infact not just a butter salesman, a man who undertook a racist attack on someone iirc.


when did that happen?


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> when did that happen?



He went for the lead singer of bloc party, spat in his face etc


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/jul/22/john.lydon.racist.assault


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

Every report says that lyndon was not involved in anything physical at all. Even the bloc party bloke said that.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Would you say _Okereke is a posh scouse twat - likened himself to Bowie ffs?_


everything he says is suspect - I'll just stick with his music love "he's hearing voices"


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 22, 2014)

Is that actually what happened? Do we know for sure?


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Nice to know "sim67" comes below a butter salesman on your scale
> 
> Infact not just a butter salesman, a man who undertook a racist attack on someone iirc.


 I see you edited your post to try and be more provocative


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> I see you edited your post to try and be more provocative


Yep.

I suddenly remembered about him having a go at the bloc party frontman.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

8ball said:


> Hmmm.. racist property developer vs foppish comedian with delusions of relevance . . . which is best . . ?


  Realistically two men desperate to revive ailing careers


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Every report says that lyndon was not involved in anything physical at all. Even the bloc party bloke said that.


  But his verbally racist entourage is perfectly acceptable.

(sarcastic)


----------



## 8ball (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Realistically two men desperate to revive ailing careers


 
Russell Brand's career is ailing?


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

8ball said:


> Russell Brand's career is ailing?


 
he hasnt done anything for a while apart from make a twat of himself on supposed political broadcasts has he?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> he hasnt done anything for a while apart from make a twat of himself on supposed political broadcasts has he?


 
Which he started doing at the height of his career, which he seems to have put partly on hold, and which you are bizarrely describing as an effort to revive it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> But his verbally racist entourage is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> (sarcastic)


No one said it was acceptable - and i don't accept his post-events excuses. It's also not acceptable to say he physically attacked the other lad. Seriously, just read things properly and maybe look at another source before making claims. I'm not meaning to have a dig but doing that would really help avoid daft situations developing.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

8ball said:


> Which he started doing at the height of his career, which he seems to have put partly on hold, and which you are bizarrely describing as an effort to revive it.


 
He dissappeared for a while, and then came back making political ramblings....

Then again I don't follow the media much so he may have done stuff that I'm not aware of.

Edit: you're right, I didn't realise he's still doing films, despicable me 2 last year....


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No one said it was acceptable - and i don't accept his post-events excuses. It's also not acceptable to say he physically attacked the other lad. Seriously, just read things properly and maybe look at another source before making claims. I'm not meaning to have a dig but doing that would really help avoid daft situations developing.


 
Point taken, but it still remains that between a racist and an idiot, I'd rather have the idiot.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Brand is sincere. It's a mistake to suggest this is a cynical move on his part.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Brand is sincere. It's a mistake to suggest this is a cynical move on his part.


 
Ill take your word for it..... But im very cynical about celebrity's motives.... Any publicity is still publicity, even if it is misguided ramblings.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

Yes,brand is 100% sincere - he was out early collecting cash for Kobane on sunday when others were sleeping off their hangovers. It's the sincerity allied to eager naivety that has led him to this current trouble.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

...and to use a cliche, only people who do nothing don't make mistakes.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Obviously there's a massive amount of ego wrapped up in it for him, but it's surely not that difficult to spot the careerists? There's a lot of things you can criticise Brand for, but please keep it on target.

I quite like him fwiw.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Actually, I appreciate my liking him isn't really worth anything. But, I think he's much more use than most of the rest of the celebrity left - he makes mistakes, but he's very enthusiastic and actually seems capable of reflection.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Obviously there's a massive amount of ego wrapped up in it for him, but it's surely not that difficult to spot the careerists? There's a lot of things you can criticise Brand for, but please keep it on target.
> 
> I quite like him fwiw.


as ive mumbled on about before, his massive ego comes from his clinical hypermania (or similar) and is a condition that he's self aware about and trying to keep under control, and that tbf couldve been the death of him...he seems to have ridden out the worst of it and is now channeling his energies into something positive as best he can.
you can always psychoanlayse ego mania but in many cases its just good old fashioned narcissism - with Russel Brand it seems deeply wired into his biology and its unlikely to be something that he can ever shake off, or just learn to be a bit more humble, iyswim.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2014)

Hypomania is the term.

Is he actually diagnosed?

/pedant


----------



## ska invita (Oct 22, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Hypomania is the term.
> 
> Is he actually diagnosed?
> 
> /pedant


well thats my (very non expert) diagnosis - i think in his booky he talks about bipolar, which to my understanding is a spectrum of conditions and can be very hard to pin down. from what i can see he particularly matches the hypomania one (childhood depression, followed by manic activity, hypersexuality etc). The precise condition isnt that important, but I think theres definitely something there and it explains a lot about him - especially the lifestyle he's led which has exacerbated the problem and rewards the manic behaviour (the entertainment industry)

Sorry yes, hypomania, thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypomania


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Obviously there's a massive amount of ego wrapped up in it for him, but it's surely not that difficult to spot the careerists? There's a lot of things you can criticise Brand for, but please keep it on target.
> 
> I quite like him fwiw.


 
Oh don't get me wrong, I think he's funny.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> The sex pistols are one of the very greatest bands of all time, and anyone who doesn't recognise that deserves all those pink Floyd albums they own.



Do people really still have this playground attitude?

Both are decent bands in their own right and Lydon himself admits that his slagging of the Floyd was just part of their make up and that he actually likes some of their music.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Fuck off hippie.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

What if you dont own any sex pistols or any pink floyd music? Or like either?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 22, 2014)

then you are a poorer man for it


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> then you are a poorer man for tune


 
There will be no dad-rock in my collection


----------



## 8115 (Oct 22, 2014)

My problem with Russell Brand is that I think he's got a long way on sex appeal and I'm not sure that his recent political awakening was based on much more than a flash of genius while talking to Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight. Which are kind of flimsy foundations.

He was good about drugs services though.

What exactly are his politics? Save me reading the book.  Presumably it wants go be No Logo for the 21st century which makes me feel a bit depressed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 22, 2014)

8115 said:


> My problem with Russell Brand is that I think he's got a long way on sex appeal and I'm not sure that his recent political awakening was based on much more than a flash of genius while talking to Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight. Which are kind of flimsy foundations.
> 
> He was good about drugs services though.
> 
> What exactly are his politics? Save me reading the book.  Presumably it wants go be No Logo for the 21st century which makes me feel a bit depressed.




he was regularly on marches etc before he became famous- he's a knobhead but he's sincere in his politics.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

He's always claimed to be an anarchist, I believe. I seem to remember reading some quite insightful articles he wrote well before the Paxman interview - it isn't a recent awakening at all.


----------



## bmd (Oct 22, 2014)

8115 said:


> My problem with Russell Brand is that I think he's got a long way on sex appeal and I'm not sure that his recent political awakening was based on much more than a flash of genius while talking to Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight. Which are kind of flimsy foundations.
> 
> He was good about drugs services though.
> 
> What exactly are his politics? Save me reading the book.  Presumably it wants go be No Logo for the 21st century which makes me feel a bit depressed.



He was shit about drugs services.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 22, 2014)

bmd said:


> He was shit about drugs services.


I thought he was ok? Bit abstinence focussed but made the point that if you want good services you have to fund them. Or am I wrong.

Anyway I like my political figures dusty and uncharismatic please.


----------



## bmd (Oct 22, 2014)

8115 said:


> I thought he was ok? Bit abstinence focussed but made the point that if you want good services you have to fund them. Or am I wrong.
> 
> Anyway I like my political figures dusty and uncharismatic please.



No, you agree with many others. I don't agree with his view that abstinence-based 12 step focused services are the way. I think it excludes a lot of people, doesn't take into account all the other ways of recovery and is based on his experience which is always a problem when you're promoting recovery.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 22, 2014)

bmd said:


> No, you agree with many others. I don't agree with his view that abstinence-based 12 step focused services are the way. I think it excludes a lot of people, doesn't take into account all the other ways of recovery and is based on his experience which is always a problem when you're promoting recovery.


Actually I suppose I don't massively agree with abstinence as the only way. I do agree that services need to be good and substitute prescribing shouldn't be the only choice, or the end unless that's the person's choice.


----------



## bmd (Oct 22, 2014)

8115 said:


> Actually I suppose I don't massively agree with abstinence as the only way. I do agree that services need to be good and substitute prescribing shouldn't be the only choice, or the end unless that's the person's choice.



12 steppers can be evangelistic about their way but it's just one of many.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

I once heard 12 steppers only have a 5% chance of success, Brands political adventure probably stands an even worse chance. Lydon on the other hand has a down to earth, fact based approach to drugs and has never had any problems. When it comes to young people they need to be knowledgeable about politics and drugs. long live punk rock.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

I don't like him - i think he's a bit of a dick, but that's not what worries me - we're all dicks - what worries me is the growth of celebrity culture and a star system around oppositional politics. We can do without that whether the stars are dicks, are right or not.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't like him - i think he's a bit of a dick, but that's not what worries me - we're all dicks - what worries me is the growth of celebrity culture and a star system around oppositional politics. We can do without that whether the stars are dicks, are right or not.


What does oppositional politics mean, thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

8115 said:


> What does oppositional politics mean, thanks.


Politics that opposes the status quo. Or significant elements of it and its actions at least.

(Don't bother idris)


----------



## 8115 (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Politics that opposes the status quo. Or significant elements of it and its actions at least.
> 
> (Don't bother idris)


I thought it might be as opposed to collaborative politics. That's why I asked as then it didn't seem to make sense.  But actually it's just a big word for a simple concept.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

8115 said:


> I thought it might be as opposed to collaborative politics. That's why I asked as then it didn't seem to make sense.  But actually it's just a big word for a simple concept.


 I'm still having problems with the word "concept"


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

I just read this yesterday, took about half an hour.  It's really good, insofar as a book aimed at teenagers can be good.  He strikes me as a sound fellow.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I just read this yesterday, took about half an hour.  It's really good, insofar as a book aimed at teenagers can be good.  He strikes me as a sound fellow.


why?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> he hasnt done anything for a while apart from make a twat of himself on supposed political broadcasts has he?



The account he gives in the book is that he's going to give up showbiz, having realized what a pathetic joke it all is, and devote himself to full-time activism and bonking Jemima Goldsmith.  If he keeps to his word I really will be impressed.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> why?



Because in his position most people would just get on with being a showbiz star and "enjoying" their riches.  Brand is different, and admirably so, for two reasons:

1.  He has realized how sad and pathetic celebrity culture is.
2.  He wants us all to understand this.
3.  He wrote a book to try to make the world a better place.

You won't find Noel Edmunds doing that sort of thing.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Because in his position most people would just get on with being a showbiz star and "enjoying" their riches.  Brand is different, and admirably so, for two reasons:
> 
> 1.  He has realized how sad and pathetic celebrity culture is.
> 2.  He wants us all to understand this.
> ...


Which of these are the two reasons?
Is he not still a celebrity or using his celebrity status?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 22, 2014)

8115 said:


> I thought he was ok? Bit abstinence focussed but made the point that if you want good services you have to fund them. Or am I wrong.
> 
> Anyway I like my political figures dusty and uncharismatic please.



Too focused on 12 step as the only way and really critical of methadone maintenance (which has some good evidence behind it).


----------



## cantsin (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> I once heard 12 steppers only have a 5% chance of success, Brands political adventure probably stands an even worse chance. Lydon on the other hand has a down to earth, fact based approach to drugs and has never had any problems. When it comes to young people they need to be knowledgeable about politics and drugs. long live punk rock.



how do you think we're going to judge "Brands political adventure" in terms of "success " or otherwise ?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> Which of these are the two reasons?



Neither of course.



tony heath said:


> Is he not still a celebrity or using his celebrity status?



He claims, or at least implies, that he's going to stop being that kind of a celebrity now.  I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.


----------



## treelover (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> he hasnt done anything for a while apart from make a twat of himself on supposed political broadcasts has he?




He is in the middle of a massive global tour, he has a book out, he has 500'000 twitter followers, not sure he is on the way out.


----------



## treelover (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Brand is sincere. It's a mistake to suggest this is a cynical move on his part.



No great Brand fan, but no one turns up to support 50 or so occupy types on a rainy night with loads of pizza if you are not somewhat committed.


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> Which of these are the two reasons?
> Is he not still a celebrity or using his celebrity status?



Yes but what Dwyer is trying to say is that he (Brand not Dwyer) has realised how sad and pathetic this is, wants us to understand things and wants to make the world a better place by writing books. And good luck to him

eta Christ, how does anyone take him seriously? (not Christ and not Brand)


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

cantsin said:


> how do you think we're going to judge "Brands political adventure" in terms of "success " or otherwise ?


A success imo would be to end homelessness and food poverty. A success for Brand would be to replace Ike as chief shill. Neither will happen.


----------



## elbows (Oct 22, 2014)

As per the earlier tweets regarding Easeman and related fallout, the entire debate portion has been removed from the latest version of the event poster that Brand put on his twitter.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 22, 2014)

bmd said:


> He was shit about drugs services.



I'd really like to see him challenged on his public comments about drug treatment. 

As with his "proper" politics, as others have said, I don't doubt his sincerity.  And there is something to be said for a greater focus on abstinence, from the front line services (something happening with the "recovery agenda", tbf, although all seems a bit "Big Society" to me), but not at the expense of the harm reduction and prescribing interventions which evolved and improved massively, in my experience/opinion, throughout the noughties. Brand talks very much like he believes the latter are a "bad thing", doubtlessly influenced by his own recovery which was quite obviously 12 step, and which he still alludes to practising in the odd interview (not sure it he attends meetings, mind...).

Shame, as he could be a great champion of addiction issues, if he was just a bit more nuanced about the whole thing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> No great Brand fan, but no one turns up to support 50 or so occupy types on a rainy night with loads of pizza if you are not somewhat committed.


Can't argue with that.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> A success imo would be to end homelessness and food poverty. A success for Brand would be to replace Ike as chief shill. Neither will happen.



so you think we should judge Brand , in political terms, by whether he "end(s) homelessness and food poverty" ?


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 22, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Can't argue with that.



What if you don't like anchovies or pizza, what then? Noel Edmonds never turns up at occupy protests with the wrong junk food and no one could say he isn't committed. You can't argue with that.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

cantsin said:


> so you think we should judge Brand , in political terms, by whether he "end(s) homelessness and food poverty" ?


I would like to see this done, and it's not going to be achieved by delivering pizza or watching youtube videos of Brand instead of voting


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 22, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> What if you don't like anchovies or pizza, what then? Noel Edmonds never turns up at occupy protests with the wrong junk food and no one could say he isn't committed. You can't argue with that.


Noel Edmonds had a tv show where he pledged to mend Broken Britain. It featured carole Malone.

Clearly Noel wins 

If you don't like anchovies/pizza then you should fuck off to north korea


----------



## cantsin (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> I would like to see this done, and it's not going to be achieved by delivering pizza or watching youtube videos of Brand instead of voting



(or by chatting shite on forums) - Brand has never implied not voting would "end food poverty" (as you / Chris Martin etc put it - not sure what it actually means ? ) , or delivering pizza...meanwhile, that daft old contrary sod Lydon was calling for people not to vote less than a decade ago ( video in this thread ) .


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

cantsin said:


> (or by chatting utter shite on forums) - Brand has never implied not voting would "end food poverty" (as you / Chris Martin put it - not sure what it actually means ? ) , or delivering pizza...meanwhile, that daft old contrary sod Lydon was calling for people not to vote less than a decade ago ( video in this thread ) .


you asked


cantsin said:


> how do you think we're going to judge "Brands political adventure" in terms of "success " or otherwise ?


 I said I thought he would be a success if he could 


tony heath said:


> end homelessness and food poverty


 You seem to be as ignorant of peoples needs as he is.


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 22, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If you don't like anchovies/pizza then you should fuck off to north korea



Why should I go to North Korea just because I don't like anchovies/pizza? I could get something else. Like a kebab. Or chips. Anything really. Falafel. Anything.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> you asked
> I said I thought he would be a success if he could
> You seem to be as ignorant of peoples needs as he is.



great stuff - keep voting / writing 'end poverty' on your hand / posting on here incessantly, we'll get there in no time


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

cantsin said:


> so you think we should judge Brand , in political terms, by whether he "end(s) homelessness and food poverty" ?



He's not the Messiah... 






...he's a (formally?) very naughty boy


----------



## tony heath (Oct 22, 2014)

cantsin said:


> great stuff - keep voting / writing 'end poverty' on your hand / posting on here incessantly, we'll get there in no time


I will keep voting and continue to do whatever I choose. Get back to your fucking booky wooky, you've nothing to say.


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 22, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> If you don't like anchovies/pizza then you should fuck off to north korea



Awesome Wells Are anchovies/pizza big in North Korea? Is that what they do? Tbh I'm not that bothered about anchovies (not sure I've ever had anchovies!) but I like pizza. But why North Korea? Why should I go to North Korea if I don't like pizza or anchovies? What's that about?


----------



## Dr. Furface (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The account he gives in the book is that he's going to give up showbiz, having realized what a pathetic joke it all is, and devote himself to full-time activism and bonking Jemima Goldsmith.  If he keeps to his word I really will be impressed.


I read they'd split up recently. I'd like to think she dumped him after she read his book.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 22, 2014)

tony heath said:


> you've nothing to say.



next to the man who's clocked up 1K + posts about not-very-fucking-much in month 1, it might well look that way bro !


----------



## fogbat (Oct 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> No great Brand fan, but no one turns up to support 50 or so occupy types on a rainy night with loads of pizza if you are not somewhat committed.


No full time job, plenty of cash for all the pizza and cabs you need. 

I'm not convinced he's exerting himself.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 22, 2014)

Can probably write it off as a business expense.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 22, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Awesome Wells Are anchovies/pizza big in North Korea? Is that what they do? Tbh I'm not that bothered about anchovies (not sure I've ever had anchovies!) but I like pizza. But why North Korea? Why should I go to North Korea if I don't like pizza or anchovies? What's that about?


Err, it was a joke


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 23, 2014)

Rob Newman, foppish comedian from the Mary Whitehouse Experience that had the girls swooning in the early 90s also got involved in activism later on, some friends saw him talk a few years back. Not narcissistic like Brand, and after his fame had largely waned away, but quite sincere & knowledgeable apparently.


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Rob Newman, foppish comedian from the Mary Whitehouse Experience that had the girls swooning in the early 90s also got involved in activism later on, some friends saw him talk a few years back. Not narcissistic like Brand, and after his fame had largely waned away, but quite sincere & knowledgeable apparently.



There is some evidence by which we may judge this for ourselves. I think I watched this myself but too long ago to remember how good & accurate I thought it was.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 23, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Rob Newman, foppish comedian from the Mary Whitehouse Experience that had the girls swooning in the early 90s also got involved in activism later on, some friends saw him talk a few years back. Not narcissistic like Brand, and after his fame had largely waned away, but quite sincere & knowledgeable apparently.



Top bloke according to a mate of mine who is a carpenter and did his kitchen.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he was regularly on marches etc before he became famous- he's a knobhead but he's sincere in his politics.


i dont think thats quite right....by some strange circumstance i seem to have followed the life of RB fairly closely all along the way,,,and IIRC by his own admission he left an MTV studio one day to go on an MTV-expenses-paid shopping trip down Oxford street and happened to stumble on  whatever anticapitalist carnival it was he got his kit off at that one time, attracted as he was by the vibes off it, not because he was a committed politico but because he knew a good thing when faced with it. Which is fine, but my point is his political awakening came some way down the line a bit further, and he admits to  being pretty shallow in those early days of fame.

My take on RB is he's a normal essex lad, grown up in suburbia who got clinically depressed and ill - a healthy response to home counties suburbia - and for whatever complex reasons got manic, found the entertainment industry could enable his condition, and somewhere down the line through his experiences he got in touch with his anarcho historical materialist side...im surprised not more drug taking celebs reach this conculsion....maybe its a class thing



butchersapron said:


> I don't like him - i think he's a bit of a dick, but that's not what worries me - we're all dicks - what worries me is the growth of celebrity culture and a star system around oppositional politics. We can do without that whether the stars are dicks, are right or not.


 
yes those of us not in ivory towers know we are flawed, and heres a guy who through a bit of society-induced madness has ended up in the biggest ivory tower of them all, celebrity, and now he's in it he's seen a light and is trying his best to knock it down in whatever way he thinks he can. I dont blame him for being a celebrity, nor for him not able to properly shake of his celebrity status, and neither is it his fault celebrity culture is an enabler of his particular personality.

I reckon we are far from a saturation point of star figures of oppositional politics - the real problem is a failure of the organised left to have a place in the public eye, not the fault of the odd extrovert to slip into the mainstream through some bizarre parasitical back door.


----------



## chilango (Oct 23, 2014)

A bigger/stronger/more rooted Left or opposition could easily absorb/accommodate Brand (as it did with all kinds in the 70s I assume.

But the opposition now is so small, unsteady, weak and lacking in identity that it can easily be (further) broken by the impact of individuals (even non-celebrities).


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 23, 2014)

bmd said:


> 12 steppers can be evangelistic about their way but it's just one of many.



I only noticed your later comments on this this morning.

Brands last tour, The Messiah Complex, apparently touched on the tendency for figureheads of movements which caused social upheaval to be posthumously deified and have the words and beliefs bended and twisted to suit agendas and narratives which the figures would never themselves have subscribed to. He sites Christ, Ghandi & Malcolm X.

I wonder if he'd include Bill W in this paradigm? I distinctly remember one of AAs traditions being something about no opinion on outside issues. Brand attended parliamentary committee meetings with staff from his 12 step rehab, to lobby against non-abstinence treatment. 

Messiah complex, indeed.


----------



## bmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I only noticed your later comments on this this morning.
> 
> Brands last tour, The Messiah Complex, apparently touched on the tendency for figureheads of movements which caused social upheaval to be posthumously deified and have the words and beliefs bended and twisted to suit agendas and narratives which the figures would never themselves have subscribed to. He sites Christ, Ghandi & Malcolm X.
> 
> ...







			
				Alcoholics Anonymous said:
			
		

> Tradition Eleven - our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films


----------



## treelover (Oct 23, 2014)

Is there anything on what he was like when he was a student, anyone know of encounters with him?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 23, 2014)

I do wish we could get a "none of the above" option on the box, found this today which I approve of - https://twitter.com/NoneAboveUK (http://notavote.co.uk/index.html)

I'd rather have the option to spoil your vote and have it counted as a protest vote but agree with them that this is exceptionally unlikely to ever be allowed.



> 8) Why don’t I just spoil my ballot paper by writing None Of The Above on it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2014)

bmd said:


> No, you agree with many others. I don't agree with his view that abstinence-based 12 step focused services are the way. I think it excludes a lot of people, doesn't take into account all the other ways of recovery and is based on his experience which is always a problem when you're promoting recovery.



I'm of a similar opinion. I believe that group therapies are a good possibility, but they don't work for everyone, and AA's version is pretty prescriptive. Sometimes you need to find your own way, or find something helpful that doesn't involve the whole "group" dynamic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't like him - i think he's a bit of a dick, but that's not what worries me - we're all dicks - what worries me is the growth of celebrity culture and a star system around oppositional politics. We can do without that whether the stars are dicks, are right or not.



A "celebrity" culture that's seeing a return to political nepotism within the mainstream parties, which to my way of thinking is just as grim as the likes of Brand or Owen Jones being parlayed as the voices of revolution and socialism respectively.


----------



## bmd (Oct 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm of a similar opinion. I believe that group therapies are a good possibility, but they don't work for everyone, and AA's version is pretty prescriptive. Sometimes you need to find your own way, or find something helpful that doesn't involve the whole "group" dynamic.



Yeah, very true. I didn't even think of that when I was posting but lots of people simply don't want to tell a room full of strangers about their problems.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Then he flogged some butter.
> 
> After reforming the SeX Pistols years ago for the same reason.
> 
> He's not as smart as he thinks he is. At all. He's just a comedy angry shouty twat.



He's a property developer with a portfolio. He made his wedge giving people the image of what they thought anarchism is then became an instant capitalist. He may have married into money also. He's a cunt but certainly not a thick one.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 23, 2014)

Is this the downstairs loo
Is this the chaise longue
Does this come with the fixtures too?
Because I wanna be...private equity


----------



## treelover (Oct 23, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...ssell-brand-revolution-owen-jones-live-debate

It, the live discussion, really doesn't sound that inspiring.


----------



## killer b (Oct 23, 2014)

no way.


----------



## rekil (Oct 23, 2014)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...ssell-brand-revolution-owen-jones-live-debate
> 
> It, the live discussion, really doesn't sound that inspiring.





> Each is angry, each is liberal, and each wants to see an improvement in the lives of ordinary people in this country and abroad – be it financial, environmental or spiritual. But can they hash out a plan to galvanise the left? After all, even the Guardian itself, for which both men write, has been critical of the gulf between their anger and their solutions.


lol


----------



## killer b (Oct 23, 2014)

EVEN THE GUARDIAN ITSELF


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 24, 2014)

Bit lively on Newsnight tonight:


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Bit lively on Newsnight tonight:



Evan was pretty much destroyed there.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2014)

editor said:


> Evan was pretty much destroyed there.


Yes, and tbf Brand did manage to articulate and publicise some important recent examples of working class resistance and action, but....I'm still left feeling that the performance appears primary; I suppose that's inevitable from a performer.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 24, 2014)

Bereft of a response the corporate mouthpiece resorts to smear tactics via 911 truth accusation.

However, I do hope Brand isn't a truther.

But if he is, that's his business in a free thinking society and is irrelevant to his broader point.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Bereft of a response the corporate mouthpiece resorts to smear tactics via 911 truth accusation.
> 
> However, I do hope Brand isn't a truther.
> 
> But if he is, that's his business in a free thinking society and is irrelevant to his broader point.


No it's not - it damages and undermines it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Bereft of a response the corporate mouthpiece resorts to smear tactics via 911 truth accusation.
> 
> However, I do hope Brand isn't a truther.
> 
> But if he is, that's his business in a free thinking society and is irrelevant to his broader point.


except that once you go down the truther path - even just a little bit - what you say on other things loses any authority you may previously have had. because you've shown yourself credulous to the _n_th degree.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> except that once you go down the truther path - even just a little bit - what you say on other things loses any authority you may previously have had. because you've shown yourself credulous to the _n_th degree.


you may as well have been in that tower block as far as your opinion matters, the same goes for anyone who listens believes Brand, remember how media figures fooled us in the 70's, I always think of him as a Berlusconi boy


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2014)

tony heath said:


> you may as well have been in that tower block as far as your opinion matters, the same goes for anyone who listens believes Brand, remember how media figures fooled us in the 70's, I always think of him as a Berlusconi boy


i'll give your opinion the weight you suggest it deserves.


----------



## rorymac (Oct 24, 2014)

I think the element of performance is necessary because otherwise he will get bogged down in the distractions of the interviewer and questions designed to undermine what he is saying .. he does it really well imo
He's only human too and he's up against it every time he opens his mouth.
You have to be plain daft to think he's doing any of this as a career move imo


----------



## tony heath (Oct 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll give your opinion the weight you suggest it deserves.


Yes - I should hope so


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2014)

tony heath said:


> Yes - I should hope so


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 24, 2014)

The gf described it as 'bullying', which it is a bit, invading personal space and shouting.  After years of 'soft' BBC interviews of people who should be hung out to dry I can't say I'm particularly sympathetic.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>


sensible


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 24, 2014)

I thought he did ok in that interview actually. He seemed, as far as Brand can, reasonable. it's also probably wise not to expect much and not to take it too seriously when you're on the likes of Newsnight. 

At least it wasn't that awful Daily Politics shitfest with Andrew Neil (and Michael 'i hate the leftie bbc except it's my meal ticket these days' Portillo)


----------



## shaman75 (Oct 24, 2014)

The media has decided to focus on 9-11 conspiracy theories.  Not just the Mail either, who predictably do not mention a single point he made about specific groups taking direct action.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2014)

a lesson, if any were needed, in why you should stay the fuck away from 9-11 conspiracies and the nutcases who espouse them.


----------



## Wookey (Oct 24, 2014)

I think the difference in Brand between the Paxton interview and this one, is marked and notable! Whereas in the Paxton round he was, on several occasions, against the ropes in terms of providing practical alternatives to the status quo, in this interview he repeatedly uses the phrase "creative direct action" - which gives some shape to his proposals at least, especially with the examples he cites.

He has either been told by a PR expert, or (more likely) he's learned himself through practice, that air-time is precious, and to stick to the agenda of the interviewer is a lost opportunity. I LOVE the way he dismisses the graph, because at base level he is being told "Look here at this, this thing. Absorb this, and then I'll ask you a question about it." That technique is manipulative and leaves no room for Brand's alternative agenda - but we accept it as the normal paradigm because we're used to handing "journalists" and "interviewers" the power of the moment.

To then declare as Brand does "Well, I'm going to use this time to talk directly to the viewers...." is SUPERB! Not only rather funny, but succinctly encapsulates his demand that we should break down the power structures to which we currently acquiesce, and turn things on their heads. Who needs the capitalist mouthpiece that is Evan Davies, when there are several million people to be spoken to, in way that (like it or not folks!) will resonate with hundreds of thousands of them.

That interview with Davies was more impactful, made more sense, and was more inspiring in terms of practical direction than I've seen so far.

I come at this from the perspective that Brand might not be right on everything, but he is earnest and honest in what he says, he's a good-hearted man, and it chimes with me politics strongly.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Oct 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I thought he did ok in that interview actually. He seemed, as far as Brand can, reasonable. it's also probably wise not to expect much and not to take it too seriously when you're on the likes of Newsnight.
> 
> At least it wasn't that awful Daily Politics shitfest with Andrew Neil (and Michael 'i hate the leftie bbc except it's my meal ticket these days' Portillo)



He didn't do ok, he was brilliant.


----------



## albionism (Oct 25, 2014)

That Easeman bloke is crying in The Independent today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ivist-in-brand-row-i-was-smeared-9817049.html


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Oct 25, 2014)

I LOVE Russell Brand. He can be a fucking twat and say some stupid shit and get some things wrong. But... he's fierce and he says what he thinks and he believes what he says.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

It was ok. I'd still rather see Dizzy Rascal or Chomsky on Newsnight.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 25, 2014)

i been saying for years that Russell Brand has good ideas on revolution (if i didnt do a thread on it here, i did on facebook). And although not leading the revolution himself, if he wasnt such a messer, could do it.

England needs a revolutionary (person) to lead the people. Russell Brand is good enough for me, but probably too much of a messer for the general public.


----------



## Flanflinger (Oct 25, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i been saying for years that Russell Brand has good ideas on revolution (if i didnt do a thread on it here, i did on facebook). And although not leading the revolution himself, if he wasnt such a messer, could do it.
> 
> England needs a revolutionary (person) to lead the people. Russell Brand is good enough for me,* but probably too much of a messer for the general public*.


 
Yeah they're not too keen on ex smackheads spouting shyte.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Oct 25, 2014)

Flanflinger said:


> Yeah they're not too keen on ex smackheads spouting shyte.


Fuck off. Dickhead.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 25, 2014)

albionism said:


> That Easeman bloke is crying in The Independent today.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ivist-in-brand-row-i-was-smeared-9817049.html


On the same comments thread.


> ANTHONY MIGCHELS 8 hours ago
> Ezra Pound was the greatest poet of the 20th century, a hero Populist, a champion against Usury who promoted the work of the likes of Gesell and Major Douglas and you, some extreme leftist marxist 'anarchist' think you can criticize that man? Or people who appreciate what he stood for? The war against the Bankers that run the asylum here?
> 
> Not impressed.



Others could lay claim to being the greatest poet of the 20th century. Pound was a fascist. What's so difficult to understand?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 25, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i been saying for years that Russell Brand has good ideas on revolution (if i didnt do a thread on it here, i did on facebook). And although not leading the revolution himself, if he wasnt such a messer, could do it.
> 
> England needs a revolutionary (person) to lead the people. Russell Brand is good enough for me, but probably too much of a messer for the general public.


So you need a leader? Tbf to Brand, I don't even think that's what he's saying.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2014)

Wookey said:


> I think the difference in Brand between the Paxton interview and this one, is marked and notable! Whereas in the Paxton round he was, on several occasions, against the ropes in terms of providing practical alternatives to the status quo, in this interview he repeatedly uses the phrase "creative direct action" - which gives some shape to his proposals at least, especially with the examples he cites.
> 
> He has either been told by a PR expert, or (more likely) he's learned himself through practice, that air-time is precious, and to stick to the agenda of the interviewer is a lost opportunity. I LOVE the way he dismisses the graph, because at base level he is being told "Look here at this, this thing. Absorb this, and then I'll ask you a question about it." That technique is manipulative and leaves no room for Brand's alternative agenda - but we accept it as the normal paradigm because we're used to handing "journalists" and "interviewers" the power of the moment.
> 
> ...



Didn't realise Bill Paxton had interviewed him, did he die half way through?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 25, 2014)

Say what you like about Russell. He's got a very appropriate surname.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> So you need a leader? Tbf to Brand, I don't even think that's what he's saying.



Maybe that's not what he's explicitly saying, but he does come across as having a bit of a messiah complex himself.



And is it just me, or is there a strong hint of the iconic Che picture in that? 

Brand is providing the spectacle of resistance, rather than a genuine example of resistance to the spectacle or anything else.


----------



## tommers (Oct 25, 2014)

Weird.  I saw that interview and thought he's had some kind of breakdown.   I've always liked him but I think he's finally done what he's threatened for a long time and disappeared up his own arse.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

Is the book available free?


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 25, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> I LOVE Russell Brand. He can be a fucking twat and say some stupid shit and get some things wrong. But... he's fierce and he says what he thinks and he believes what he says.



That could be anyone on this forum tbf.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Is the book available free?


really? come on. ffs.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Is the book available free?



I would like to know why he allows Amazon to sell his stuff. They are a classic example of the type of corporations is he vehemently against. I would of thought he would have did a deal with his publisher on the terms that it wasn't sold on there. You know leading by example just like he preaches? 

Obviously my view of life is too simplistic.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I would like to know why he allows Amazon to sell his stuff. They are a classic example of the type of corporations is he vehemently against. I would of thought he would have did a deal with his publisher on the terms that it wasn't sold on there. You know leading by example just like he preaches?
> 
> Obviously my view of life is too simplistic.


I am not sure many publishers would touch a deal that excluded Amazon such is their reach. I vaguely remember someone else saying they hated Amazon but could not opt out.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> really? come on. ffs.


Yeah, really.



> Multimillionaire Russell Brand has revealed that he is “*not interested in making money anymore*” and may well give up acting to focus on his revolution.
> 
> The comedian turned political activist said *money makes him “feel guilty”* and that *the trappings of fame and fortune are “worthless and meaningless”.*
> 
> ...



So, for someone with such a digital following and his own website, why not disseminate the revolution to the people for free?


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2014)

there isn't the faintest chance any publisher would agree to a no amazon deal.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> I am not sure many publishers would touch a deal that excluded Amazon such is their reach. I vaguely remember someone else saying they hated Amazon but could not opt out.


Yeah, that would be quite revolutionary...


----------



## maomao (Oct 25, 2014)

I couldn't finda a thing he said that I disagreed with up to the 9-11 stuff though even then what he said on Newsnight was relatively reasonable, bit quoted from the book sounded dodgy though. I think he's basically all right and relatively sincere but let's see what it all looks like in 5 or 10 years.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> I am not sure many publishers would touch a deal that excluded Amazon such is their reach. I vaguely remember someone else saying they hated Amazon but could not opt out.



My guess is that he didn't even try.

He could have "done a Radiohead" and sold it primarily as an e book through his own website. It's not though he needs the money is it?


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, really.
> 
> So, for someone with such a digital following and his own website, why not disseminate the revolution to the people for free?



I suggest Russell is still struggling with the contradictions of his attraction to/repulsion from the trappings of fame and fortune on a personal level, so it's hardly surprising he has yet to work them out on a more political level.

He may well be 100% sincere (or not), but he still appears unable to recognise the full implications of his call for "revolution", far less put them into practice.


----------



## tony heath (Oct 25, 2014)

andysays said:


> I suggest Russell is still struggling with the contradictions of his attraction to/repulsion from the trappings of fame and fortune on a personal level, so it's hardly surprising he has yet to work them out on a more political level.
> 
> He may well be 100% sincere (or not), but he still appears unable to recognise the full implications of his call for "revolution", far less put them into practice.


He needs to have some time out, a retreat or something, I can see the guy burning out or being hijacked.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 25, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe that's not what he's explicitly saying, but he does come across as having a bit of a messiah complex himself.
> 
> View attachment 62923
> 
> ...


That may well be true, but it's not what he didn't say that led me to that conclusion. He is an egotist but he didn't say "Follow me, I'm the pied piper". Of course, he may be thinking that. And that poster: yes, he is trying to look like Che.

Anyway, here's Crispian St Peters


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> That may well be true, but it's not what he didn't say that led me to that conclusion. He is an egotist but he didn't say "Follow me, I'm the pied piper". Of course, he may be thinking that. And that poster: yes, he is trying to look like Che.
> 
> Anyway, here's Crispian St Peters



Without wanting to get too "armchair psychologist", I suggest Russell has some sort of subconscious wish/need to be a Pied Piper. What I find more concerning is that many people seem to have a similar need to follow him.


> Can't go on/Drag along
> Can't go Wrong/Sing along
> Pied Piper will lead you to the water


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

andysays said:


> Without wanting to get too "armchair psychologist", I suggest Russell has some sort of subconscious wish/need to be a Pied Piper. What I find more concerning is that many people seem to have a similar need to follow him.



You can buy the tee-shirt here.*

* "choose your own price".....as long as it's £17 minimum.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You can buy the tee-shirt here.*
> 
> * "choose your own price".....as long as it's £17 minimum.



He could at least get some sort of "buy the book, get the T-shirt free" thing going on...


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i been saying for years that Russell Brand has good ideas on revolution (if i didnt do a thread on it here, i did on facebook). And although not leading the revolution himself, if he wasnt such a messer, could do it.
> 
> England needs a revolutionary (person) to lead the people. Russell Brand is good enough for me, but probably too much of a messer for the general public.




Only if personal morality doesn't matter, Sachsgate and his attitude to Andrew Sachs was appalling, it can't be glossed over.

and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people including a few on here see the need for a 'leader' and are prepared to see such a complex, basically humane but mercurial figure possibly fill that role speaks volumes about the lack of any real opposition to the neo-liberal 'system.


----------



## smmudge (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You can buy the tee-shirt here.*
> 
> * "choose your own price".....as long as it's £17 minimum.



In fairness it does have an upper limit too. £99,999


----------



## xenon (Oct 25, 2014)

The establishment quakes. Russel Brand and his soppy div followers. Guardianista twats.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 25, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I would like to know why he allows Amazon to sell his stuff. They are a classic example of the type of corporations is he vehemently against. I would of thought he would have did a deal with his publisher on the terms that it wasn't sold on there. You know leading by example just like he preaches?
> 
> Obviously my view of life is too simplistic.


 
He took Murdoch's money to do his US chat show, why is he going to have a problem with Amazon?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> He took Murdoch's money to do his US chat show, why is he going to have a problem with Amazon?


What chat show?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 25, 2014)

ffs - brand is smart, witty, sincere and passionate. Hes trying to put forward radical ideas in his own way - and in so doing has got attention. Some of its messy - he's messy -, some of its half baked, hes struggling with the contrdications of being a 'sleb' and trying to take on the power structure -  but most his analysis it is pretty much on the button - and he's articulating a lot of the anger and frustration with the system far better than most people could. 
Would people rather he just twat on about his kraazzzy- lifestyle to hello magazine?  hes doesn't claim to have the answer to everything or to be any sort of 'leader' - but he has put a small chink in the dismal, exclusive monotony of mainstream political debate. 
So fair fucks to him.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> On the same comments thread.
> 
> 
> > AM 8 hours ago
> ...



AM is obsessed with NWO/Illuminati/Jewish-power conspiracy theory batshit https://archive.today/Dkgx2
He runs the 'Real Currencies' facebook blog and cross-posted TL's defence of Easeman https://archive.today/3xhC0
TL is a big fan of The Barnes Review: https://archive.today/88gCg, which is "one of the most virulent anti-Semitic organizations around ... dedicated to historical revisionism and Holocaust denial." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/barnes-review

A selection of AM's articles: "Yes, the Money Power is Jewish" https://archive.today/W64h7
AM quote: "In short: _Protocol 20 _offers a unique insight into all the essentials of monetary theory ... it is absolutely impossible that some "forger" could have written this." https://archive.today/MwcUs#selection-203.0-211.144

No links lead direct to wingnut websites - but to an archive of those bastions of conspiraloon batshittery.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

I'm watching the west ham - city game to try and avoid this bloke - and who do they show as soon as west ham score?


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2014)

isn't he famously a west ham fan? Probably the worst match to be watching today it you want to avoid him...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

killer b said:


> isn't he famously a west ham fan? Probably the worst match to be watching today it you want to avoid him...


They could've shown stinky from the rejects or some gangster or something.


----------



## rekil (Oct 25, 2014)

Maiden's Steve Harris has their crest on his bass.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

The you go to the BBC to see who got the assist and find this at the top of the page:


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What chat show?



"Brand X" on the FX channel.

"Ex Smackhead Talks Shite" was the original title.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Oct 25, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> ffs - brand is smart, witty, sincere and passionate. Hes trying to put forward radical ideas in his own way - and in so doing has got attention. Some of its messy - he's messy -, some of its half baked, hes struggling with the contrdications of being a 'sleb' and trying to take on the power structure -  but most his analysis it is pretty much on the button - and he's articulating a lot of the anger and frustration with the system far better than most people could.
> Would people rather he just twat on about his kraazzzy- lifestyle to hello magazine?  hes doesn't claim to have the answer to everything or to be any sort of 'leader' - but he has put a small chink in the dismal, exclusive monotony of mainstream political debate.
> So fair fucks to him.


Yeah that's my take on him


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

Given that (from the interview) Brand wants to talk to people who may not necessarily be into this stuff already he needs a mainstream publisher and, dare I say it maybe even Amazon. Sure he could go to a niche publisher or make the book available from his website but then he isn't going to reach many people except people already into these politics and I'd guess without reading it that his book is a bit more radical politics for dummies than serious discussion and analysis of the state of play and how to move forwards.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

I was wondering the other day if he could be the UK's answer to Ming. . .except that under the hippie exterior Ming is a hard-nosed parish-pump politico, and with RB it's hippy nonsense all the way down. . .


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> Given that (from the interview) Brand wants to talk to people who may not necessarily be into this stuff already he needs a mainstream publisher and, dare I say it maybe even Amazon. Sure he could go to a niche publisher or make the book available from his website but then he isn't going to reach many people except people already into these politics and I'd guess without reading it that his book is a bit more radical politics for dummies than serious discussion and analysis of the state of play and how to move forwards.


What politics exactly?


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What politics exactly?


Whatever Brand's muddled "don't vote, lets have a revolution" politics are.


----------



## Wookey (Oct 25, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Didn't realise Bill Paxton had interviewed him, did he die half way through?



Paxman! My bad!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 25, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> So you need a leader? Tbf to Brand, I don't even think that's what he's saying.



In terms of getting the revolution going, yes. I think Britain needs an actual person (or group of people) to get it properly started too. People by themselves have done so little - I am probably saying it badly, but the public did not get out on the streets protesting against the bankers who fucked up the world economy - nobody went to jail - and people did not storm parliament and overthrow the government - that is the level of revolution that needs to happen.

as an aside, the music scene has also been absent - there should have been a musical revolution documenting what was happening - there wasnt. Why dont people feel inspired anymore??? They are certainly angry - the whole thing is exacerbating. Are people (and when i say 'people' i mean the general public- you me, and average working people of society, paying tax and getting the tube to work every day) just lazy?

I know i havent articulated myself very well here - but i am honestly wondering about this....if anyone has any thoughts, i'd like to hear it...


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What politics exactly?


Brands repeatedly mentioning Picketty in that interview made me assume he is within some tradition or movement.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> Brands repeatedly mentioning Picketty in that interview made me assume he is within some tradition or movement.


Why?


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2014)

albionism said:


> That Easeman bloke is crying in The Independent today.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ivist-in-brand-row-i-was-smeared-9817049.html



Ha.



> Mr Easeman said he had contacted Merseyside Police over the blogs.



I wonder what offence the bloggers committed that he thinks would interest the police. Doesn't even know how to make credible threats, lawyers not police you tool.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> I was wondering the other day if he could be the UK's answer to Ming. . .except that under the hippie exterior Ming is a hard-nosed parish-pump politico, and with RB it's hippy nonsense all the way down. . .


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

andysays said:


>


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

Und so weiter.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_'Ming'_Flanagan


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> ...



None the wiser


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

andysays said:


> None the wiser



Read the wiki, maaan.


----------



## andysays (Oct 25, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_'Ming'_Flanagan



OK (still none the wiser, TBH)


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK (still none the wiser, TBH)



Luke "Ming the Merciless" Flanagan is probably the nearest Irish equivalent to Brand, except that he a) got his start as a 'local character' rather than a TV star, and b) turned out to be a credible political figure who can actually get normal people to vote for him, despite his krazy whacky electric kool aid image.


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2014)

elbows said:


> I wonder what offence the bloggers committed that he thinks would interest the police. Doesn't even know how to make credible threats, lawyers not police you tool.



Oh, I've just read his full statement, which I won't link to here at the moment since its on his own website and should be easy enough to google.

Seems he does know how to make more credible threats with the word defamation in them. Sounds like he reckons the bloggers in question are locals that he has some history with. One point he has that may carry some weight is that the stuff that people including me dug up about Firescout Corporation doesn't mean that Easeman can be described as a Bailiff, especially as much of that stuff was about Heffey, not Easeman, and the exact nature of the links between the two has not been established beyond their mutual involvement in Albion Law.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why?


Usually when people mention theorists they do it to locate themselves somewhere with reference to that theorist.

In addition Brand says he is for creative direct action. That is a form of politics. It can be about the manner not just the content. In addition manner and content are often correlated.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> Usually when people mention theorists they do it to locate themselves somewhere with reference to that theorist.
> 
> In addition Brand says he is for creative direct action. That is a form of politics. It can be about the manner not just the content. In addition manner and content are often correlated.


Can you think of any other reasons they may name a 'theorist'?

And i'm going to ignore the rest for the waffle that it is.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can you think of any other reasons they may name a 'theorist'?
> 
> And i'm going to ignore the rest for the waffle that it is.


No, why don't you tell me.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> No, why don't you tell me.


Oh god. If you can't think of another reason they have named a trendy theorist here's a clue -to look like they have read and are ion with the trendy theorist.

No, being a fake reader of the book, this suggests they are not part of or identifying with a larger movement.


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 25, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> as an aside, the music scene has also been absent - there should have been a musical revolution documenting what was happening - there wasnt. Why dont people feel inspired anymore???



http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...-cuts-would-cause-electro-swing-2013100380043

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...d-of-music-announced-at-grammys-2013021259333


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 25, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Luke "Ming the Merciless" Flanagan is probably the nearest Irish equivalent to Brand, except that he a) got his start as a 'local character' rather than a TV star, and b) turned out to be a credible political figure who can actually get normal people to vote for him, despite his krazy whacky electric kool aid image.



noticed in a video of him once he had a gestapo flag adorning a wall in his house. Very father ted.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god. If you can't think of another reason they have named a trendy theorist here's a clue -to look like they have read and are ion with the trendy theorist.
> 
> No, being a fake reader of the book, this suggests they are not part of or identifying with a larger movement.


Well yes obviously he is seeking credibilty by mentioning someone else. To a degree most people do that.

Do you not think Brand partly identifies with or could be situated any group or groups around today? 

I don't know why I even care about him. Naomi Klein has written a new book, don't see anyone discussing that, sad state of affairs.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> noticed in a video of him once he had a gestapo flag adorning a wall in his house. Very father ted.



Fucking hell. Stay classy, Roscommon.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 25, 2014)

it was odd..even for me .


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> noticed in a video of him once he had a gestapo flag adorning a wall in his house. Very father ted.





Casually Red said:


> it was odd..even for me .



Yes, not even you would do something as low as that. 

Possible explanation at the link here, but it has a whiff of "that Nazi memorabilia was only resting in my account":

http://www.krank.ie/category/n_ca/pol/ming-and-the-swastika-flag-explained/


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Oct 25, 2014)

This is a bit off topic but read this the other day http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

Cos know I've argued with Dotty in the past about tax rates and the rich fucking off if they were raised, and it seems like he was right dammit cos here IS one of the richest men in the world saying it's bullshit they'd just pay. Warren (first name terms) says that the mega rich would be happy to pay higher tax if the government raised taxes but that there isn't the political will to do it, that they're coddled instead. Is that bullshit? That they'd pay?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 25, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Yes, not even you would do something as low as that.
> 
> Possible explanation at the link here, but it has a whiff of "that Nazi memorabilia was only resting in my account":
> 
> http://www.krank.ie/category/n_ca/pol/ming-and-the-swastika-flag-explained/



heres him with a glass of piss..announcing he wont be paying for it


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

That crazy Mingster!

Though in fairness, didn't Gandhi drink his own amber nectar?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 25, 2014)

wouldnt surprise me


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> wouldnt surprise me



You're partial to the odd bit of . . . _recycling _. . . yourself, are you not?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 25, 2014)

certainly not...whatever gave you that idea ?

outrageous


----------



## maomao (Oct 25, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> heres him with a glass of piss..announcing he wont be paying for it



That's fucking brilliant. Best bit is where the speaker gets all upset about it.


----------



## Mungy (Oct 25, 2014)

i'm reading revolution and it is interesting. i've been watching the trews for a few weeks and he can be really engaging. i didn't want to like him, but i just can't help it. i thought he did well on newsnight and the 9/11 stuff the bbc bloke tried to spin was shameful manipulation to try and discredit him.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 25, 2014)

dunno what his problem is..ming checked the rules and saying piss is allowed unless its an insult directed at another td.

unparliamentary language here from a Green party TD


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2014)

apologising in advance and afterwards tho.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> dunno what his problem is..ming checked the rules and saying piss is allowed unless its an insult directed at another td.
> 
> unparliamentary language here from a Green party TD




I wish my grandfather would have been alive to see that one, it was the kind of thing he got a kick out of.

But Gogarty was trying to pull a stroke with that one - it was in the dying days of the FF/Green coalition and he was being whipped to vote for something or other of an obnoxious nature. Rather than take a stand and refuse to vote for it, he tried to use unparliamentary language to get himself thrown out of the house, avoiding both the vote and the censure of his party bosses.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 25, 2014)

Typical Green. They are...were...scum.

eta

their very first act in government was to approve that rotten motorway through the hill of Tara. Hopefully theyll never be back .


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> Typical Green. They are...were...scum.
> 
> eta
> 
> their very first act in government was to approve that rotten motorway through the hill of Tara. Hopefully theyll never be back .



I read somewhere that after the PDs folded, a lot of their backroom boys went off to join the Greens. "A party becomes strong by purging itself", as Lenin taught us.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2014)

Water disgrace that Ming is!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 25, 2014)

Mungy said:


> i'm reading revolution and it is interesting. i've been watching the trews for a few weeks and he can be really engaging. i didn't want to like him, but i just can't help it. i thought he did well on newsnight and the 9/11 stuff the bbc bloke tried to spin was shameful manipulation to try and discredit him.



I'm gonna read it during my week off.


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> I was wondering the other day if he could be the UK's answer to Ming. . .except that under the hippie exterior Ming is a hard-nosed parish-pump politico, and with RB it's hippy nonsense all the way down. . .




had to google that


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

> I am probably saying it badly, but the public did not get out on the streets protesting against the bankers who fucked up the world economy - nobody went to jail - and people did not storm parliament and overthrow the government - that is the level of revolution that needs to happen.




This to me was one of the most baffling developments(or non developments) in british poltical history, why there wasn't more of a response to the banking crisis, etc?, I suppose usually then it was the SWP who would initiate major events on this scale but they chose to do little.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

And if they had you'd have slagged them off for doing so.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

None of this has a fuckbean to do with brand. People's interests are what would get them on the streets,  not some sleazy cockney.


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

Are you saying that the 'crisis' wasn't as severe here as say in Spain?, apologies if you aren't.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

I have no idea why you asked me that.


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

That's things haven't got bad enough for people to go on the streets.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> That's things haven't got bad enough for people to go on the streets.


No. I see what you mean now though now.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> Given that (from the interview) Brand wants to talk to people who may not necessarily be into this stuff already he needs a mainstream publisher and, dare I say it maybe even Amazon. Sure he could go to a niche publisher or make the book available from his website but then he isn't going to reach many people except people already into these politics and I'd guess without reading it that his book is a bit more radical politics for dummies than serious discussion and analysis of the state of play and how to move forwards.





treelover said:


> That's things haven't got bad enough for people to go on the streets.


.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> Given that (from the interview) Brand wants to talk to people who may not necessarily be into this stuff already he needs a mainstream publisher and, dare I say it maybe even Amazon. Sure he could go to a niche publisher or make the book available from his website but then he isn't going to reach many people except people already into these politics and I'd guess without reading it that his book is a bit more radical politics for dummies than serious discussion and analysis of the state of play and how to move forwards.



If that were his goal, wouldn't a strategy involving both the £15 hardback, "super-Thursday" release of a sleb-penned 'stocking- filler' and a freely accessible e-copy have a better chance of success? Or are there other commercial reasons for the book release for the xmas market?


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2014)

> Joseph Barton ✔ @Joey7Barton
> Follow
> Russell Brand. Man of the people. Starting his revolution from the executive boxes. Very Che Guevara.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If that were his goal, wouldn't a strategy involving both the £15 hardback, "super-Thursday" release of a sleb-penned 'stocking- filler' and a freely accessible e-copy have a better chance of success? Or are there other commercial reasons for the book release for the xmas market?


I'm not sure if you are criticising his integrity or his marketing strategy.


----------



## PoorButNotAChav (Oct 25, 2014)

I've been suspicious of Russell Brand's revolutionary campaign and the way the book has been published and promoted confirms my suspicions.  He has millions of Twitter followers and he has his own website so free distribution or low-price sale were options in a way that they wouldn't be for a less well known political campaigner.  However, he's signed a deal with a major publisher and the book has been released as a hardback in the run-up to Christmas.  Why?

It's not about making money.  It's not about getting his revolutionary message across to a wider audience.  It's about getting Russell Brand on TV and in the newspapers which is something major publishing companies can help him do.  It's an ego trip.  It's attention seeking.  Making another film, doing another stand-up tour or writing My Booky Wook 3 wouldn't make him stand out much so during a bout of cognitive dissonance he came up with the idea of becoming a revolutionary and a year on he's still not really thought the idea through.  However, that's not important because he's having a go at Fox News again, he's on Newsnight again and he's in The Guardian again.

It's not about promoting revolution.  It's about promoting Russell Brand.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> I'm not sure if you are criticising his integrity or his marketing strategy.


Or both, or neither; I'm really not sure.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> I'm not sure if you are criticising his integrity or his marketing strategy.


What are _you _doing?


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What are _you _doing?


That's a bit of an existential question.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> That's a bit of an existential question.


No it's not. What are _you doing_ on this thread?


----------



## rekil (Oct 25, 2014)

.


butchersapron said:


> None of this has a fuckbean to do with brand. People's interests are what would get them on the streets,  not some sleazy cockney.


PD should approach Brand in a comradely manner under the aegis of their Sleazy Cockneys Against Capitalism front group.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. What are _you doing_ on this thread?


I dunno. Criticising a comedian turned activist a bit, in the context of popular politics books maybe. What's the point of the question?


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2014)

He is on Jonathan Ross tonight, a reasonable broad platform, car crash or breakthrough?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

8115 said:


> I dunno. Criticising a comedian turned activist a bit, in the context of popular politics books maybe. What's the point of the question?


What are your criticisms of him?

To work out what you're waffling on about,


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What are your criticisms of him?
> 
> To work out what you're waffling on about,


Well I'd have to read the book to know really.

But I feel like he is reporting on what other people are saying, thinking and doing. With no real background. So he might get it wrong. I'd rather hear directly from those people.

I basically don't trust Brand to give an accurate and representative picture. And if the book is some kind of call to arms, well I don't really trust him to do that either.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

I don't like the fact that he's into transendental meditation either.

That's probably just a personal prejudice but I don't trust people who are too "we have to change our minds before we can change the world."


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 25, 2014)

Aside from who is specifically involved, are we seeing the roots, at least, of change? Or is this just the 24 hour media society capturing a few malcontents of the sort that have always existed?

Is this the end of the capitalist system...or perhaps the beginning of the end? Or will power just reassert itself and screw us over anew?

If it's the latter then perhaps we are past what might be termed (by me because I think it sounds cool) 'peak toil'.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2014)

It's def the end of the capitalist system. It has nowhere else to go after this.

Stop being obsessed by other people being obsessed by brand and go play your reality game. That shooty one.


----------



## tbtommyb (Oct 25, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> as an aside, the music scene has also been absent - there should have been a musical revolution documenting what was happening - there wasnt. Why dont people feel inspired anymore??? They are certainly angry - the whole thing is exacerbating. Are people (and when i say 'people' i mean the general public- you me, and average working people of society, paying tax and getting the tube to work every day) just lazy?
> 
> I know i havent articulated myself very well here - but i am honestly wondering about this....if anyone has any thoughts, i'd like to hear it...



is there even really still a music scene? Do people still identify with music and form cultural sub-groups from it? is there a modern day equivalent of mods or punks? i'm not sure.


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2014)

There was some old twitter evidence that some Easeman stuff might feature in the book, but having just used the amazon 'look inside' facility it seems he didn't make the final cut.



> Usama Hasan, Tariq Ramadan, Dave Boyle and Laurence Easeman for your unused but greatly appreciated contributions - it was only deadlines that stymied us.



I watched a few of Brands youtube videos to get a vague handle on how he deals with the conspiracy theory stuff. Appears to mostly adhere to something I recommended myself not long ago, looking at how governments etc make use of events, rather than getting lost in the dark by claiming to have special evidence that same governments were actually behind the events.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 25, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> is there even really still a music scene? Do people still identify with music and form cultural sub-groups from it? is there a modern day equivalent of mods or punks? i'm not sure.



The Libertines. But they only did two albums (last one was 2004), and the next one, well one can pray...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> He is on Jonathan Ross tonight, a reasonable broad platform, car crash or breakthrough?



...or advert for book masquerading as light entertainment?

He's certainly learnt some lines, but overall kerching.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...or advert for book masquerading as light entertainment?
> 
> He's certainly learnt some lines, but overall kerching.


Seriously?   He could have made 10 times the money he makes on that book by staying in hollywood for the time it took to write and edit it.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 25, 2014)

He was pretty funny on Ross, whilst still managing to blurt out the basic message  of the book - bursting in on Big Sams  interview post west ham - City at Upton Park / Motd was jolly as well .


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Seriously?   He could have made 10 times the money he makes on that book by staying in hollywood for the time it took to write and edit it.


Really? That's very precise.
I'm assuming that Brand, his companies and those involved in the marketing and sale of the book will be very happy with the opportunity to sell the book on prime-time tv.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Really? That's very precise.
> I'm assuming that Brand, his companies and those involved in the marketing and sale of the book will be very happy with the opportunity to sell the book on prime-time tv.


Saying 10 times as much is not precise, it's a commonly accepted term for 'much more'.

He'd make 10 times as much making shit films.   He'd make 10 times as much with a tell-all gossip book about hollywood.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Saying 10 times as much is not precise, it's a commonly accepted term for 'much more'.
> 
> He'd make 10 times as much making shit films.   He'd make 10 times as much with a tell-all gossip book about hollywood.


He's written other books, hasn't he?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2014)

No idea, honestly.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> He's written other books, hasn't he?


He's written an autobiography called My booky wook.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2014)

And two football books.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2014)

I never enjoyed watching Brand, he is just too full of himself and now his YouTube videos are still the same, look at smug me, I think I am clever..


----------



## tbtommyb (Oct 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I never enjoyed watching Brand, he is just too full of himself and now his YouTube videos are still the same, look at smug me, I think I am clever..


they get hundreds of thousands of views, so if what he's saying in them is at least better than what people would otherwise read/watch then it's a step up.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Is the book available free?



if you look in the right places.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 25, 2014)

Possible RB career trajectories from this point:

1. David Icke
2. Ian Bone
3. Glenda Jackson


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> they get hundreds of thousands of views, so if what he's saying in them is at least better than what people would otherwise read/watch then it's a step up.


Loads of odd things on YT get hundreds of thousands of views.


----------



## tbtommyb (Oct 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Loads of odd things on YT get hundreds of thousands of views.


yeah but he gets them regularly. And if even a quarter of what he says has some sense behind it that's a big audience of predominantly young, probably not 'traditionally' politicised people. is it not a good thing that he encourages them to question things? He's getting one hundred times the views that the TUC is getting.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 26, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> This is a bit off topic but read this the other day http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
> 
> Cos know I've argued with Dotty in the past about tax rates and the rich fucking off if they were raised, and it seems like he was right dammit cos here IS one of the richest men in the world saying it's bullshit they'd just pay. Warren (first name terms) says that the mega rich would be happy to pay higher tax if the government raised taxes but that there isn't the political will to do it, that they're coddled instead. Is that bullshit? That they'd pay?



"They" are not a homogenous group who will all act with identical motivations. It also depends on how money the government is trying to get out of them. The recent French experiment with a 75% marginal rate had most staying and some leaving.


----------



## Celyn (Oct 26, 2014)

albionism said:


> That Easeman bloke is crying in The Independent today.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ivist-in-brand-row-i-was-smeared-9817049.html


"“I find it perverse that the so-called human rights campaigner now acts like a modern-day Mugabe".

He makes it sound as  though he thought Mugabe was a figure from history.  Is he really so uninformed?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> a lesson, if any were needed, in why you should stay the fuck away from 9-11 conspiracies and the nutcases who espouse them.



Yep; 'on a plate' to the scum press...



Spoiler: ****Mail link****



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-attacks-asks-trust-American-Government.html





> New Yorkers have reacted furiously to Russell Brand's admission that he is 'open-minded' about whether the United States was behind the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> *JOIN THE CLUB:OTHERS WHO ESPOUSE A 9/11 CONSPIRACY*
> 
> ...



Job done.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2014)

Rumours that he might stand for London Mayor (on an 'anti-politics ticket' )

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...for-mayor-on-antipolitics-ticket-9818784.html


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 26, 2014)

PoorButNotAChav said:


> It's not about promoting revolution.  It's about promoting Russell Brand.



This. Pretty obviously so.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 26, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Rumours that he might stand for London Mayor (on an 'anti-politics ticket' )
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...for-mayor-on-antipolitics-ticket-9818784.html


Presumably..."don't vote" for me?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 26, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> In terms of getting the revolution going, yes. I think Britain needs an actual person (or group of people) to get it properly started too. People by themselves have done so little - I am probably saying it badly, but the public did not get out on the streets protesting against the bankers who fucked up the world economy - nobody went to jail - and people did not storm parliament and overthrow the government - that is the level of revolution that needs to happen.
> 
> as an aside, the music scene has also been absent - there should have been a musical revolution documenting what was happening - there wasnt. Why dont people feel inspired anymore??? They are certainly angry - the whole thing is exacerbating. Are people (and when i say 'people' i mean the general public- you me, and average working people of society, paying tax and getting the tube to work every day) just lazy?
> 
> I know i havent articulated myself very well here - but i am honestly wondering about this....if anyone has any thoughts, i'd like to hear it...


Speak for yourself. Have you ever heard of the "Great Man Theory'? Brand is not a revolutionary philosopher.

You're wrong about people not protesting against the bankers. What do you think Occupy is/was all about? Then there were the riots of 2011 and the show trials that followed them. Do you really think Brand is going to lead the 21st century equivalent of the Storming of the Bastille? I can't see it. Besides, revolution doesn't have to be violent.

As for "musical revolution" what do you mean? That sounds rather glib. There have been musicians performing politically engaged material. Sleaford Mods? NxtGen?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 26, 2014)

Luther Blissett said:


> AM is obsessed with NWO/Illuminati/Jewish-power conspiracy theory batshit https://archive.today/Dkgx2
> He runs the 'Real Currencies' facebook blog and cross-posted TL's defence of Easeman https://archive.today/3xhC0
> TL is a big fan of The Barnes Review: https://archive.today/88gCg, which is "one of the most virulent anti-Semitic organizations around ... dedicated to historical revisionism and Holocaust denial." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/barnes-review
> 
> ...


Brand needs to exercise better judgement, but is he capable? It's too easy to get sucked into that conspiranoid shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> This to me was one of the most baffling developments(or non developments) in british poltical history, why there wasn't more of a response to the banking crisis, etc?, I suppose usually then it was the SWP who would initiate major events on this scale but they chose to do little.



The Swappies saw no benefit (for them) to it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> Are you saying that the 'crisis' wasn't as severe here as say in Spain?, apologies if you aren't.



The political cultures are entirely different, and the British masses are on the sharp end of 30+ years of legislation that has progressively curtailed their rights to protest and to organise. People here have basically been legislatively whipped so often that now many of them will only protest if they've got nothing left to lose, or if the "interest" or subject of protest is purely local.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Swappies saw no benefit (for them) to it.



TBH, I think you're taking the suggestion that the Swappies could ever "initiate major events" a little too seriously


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 26, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> You're wrong about people not protesting against the bankers. What do you think Occupy is/was all about? Then there were the riots of 2011 and the show trials that followed them. Do you really think Brand is going to lead the 21st century equivalent of the Storming of the Bastille? I can't see it. Besides, revolution doesn't have to be violent.



I mean in an extremely visible, mass collective way, where the people really enact change, and the government has no choice but to jail the bankers, change the laws, and eventually be dismantled.



nino_savatte said:


> Do you really think Brand is going to lead the 21st century equivalent of the Storming of the Bastille? I can't see it. Besides, revolution doesn't have to be violent



Nope. Like I always said, he is too much of a messer to be taken seriously, and doesnt want to be foisted onto any pedestal. As for violence? Not sure where you got that from. Russell Brand has always declared himself a pacifist - to the point of being a flower child hippy....



nino_savatte said:


> As for "musical revolution" what do you mean? That sounds rather glib. There have been musicians performing politically engaged material. Sleaford Mods? NxtGen?



I mean a quasi political movement that documents the anger of the times, like punk. Dont try and allude that a huge cultural shift has happened musically, under peoples nose and they havent yet cottoned onto it. It hasnt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> You're wrong about people not protesting against the bankers. What do you think Occupy is/was all about? Then there were the riots of 2011 and the show trials that followed them. Do you really think Brand is going to lead the 21st century equivalent of the Storming of the Bastille? I can't see it. Besides, revolution doesn't have to be violent.



Part of the problem as I see it, is that many people want to *join* a movement, rather than co-create it. Some people are happier being followers, rather than taking responsibility for what they do - generally missing the point that if the state chooses to say that you're responsible, you'll be held responsible.
Brand is a match that might or might not light a flame. That's all. People who put faith in him being a great revolutionary leader miss the point: that it's not about following Russell, it's about acting for communal interests against those who'd strip you of them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> TBH, I think you're taking the suggestion that the Swappies could ever "initiate major events" a little too seriously



StWC was (after their power ploy) mostly a Swappie front, and the anti-war marches were very definitely initiated, channeled and organised by StWC.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> *StWC was (after their power ploy) mostly a Swappie front*, and the anti-war marches were very definitely initiated, channeled and organised by StWC.



I know about the first bit (in fact I almost mentioned it in my post), but although they got much of the credit for the first big anti-war march, I'm not convinced that they actually initiated that as a major event which wouldn't have happened in some way without them, rather than just parasiting on it in typical Swappie fashion.

Anyway, that's a bit of a sideline to the main subject of the thread, so not inclined to labour the issue.


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2014)

Maybe Brand could host a meeting with this guy, could be interesting


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 26, 2014)

I bet Lydon never brought anyone pizza.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 26, 2014)

PoorButNotAChav said:


> I've been suspicious of Russell Brand's revolutionary campaign and the way the book has been published and promoted confirms my suspicions.  He has millions of Twitter followers and he has his own website so free distribution or low-price sale were options in a way that they wouldn't be for a less well known political campaigner.  However, he's signed a deal with a major publisher and the book has been released as a hardback in the run-up to Christmas.  Why?
> 
> It's not about making money.  It's not about getting his revolutionary message across to a wider audience.  It's about getting Russell Brand on TV and in the newspapers which is something major publishing companies can help him do.  It's an ego trip.  It's attention seeking.  Making another film, doing another stand-up tour or writing My Booky Wook 3 wouldn't make him stand out much so during a bout of cognitive dissonance he came up with the idea of becoming a revolutionary and a year on he's still not really thought the idea through.  However, that's not important because he's having a go at Fox News again, he's on Newsnight again and he's in The Guardian again.
> 
> It's not about promoting revolution.  It's about promoting Russell Brand.



revolutions require people of bravery and integrity . Man who dumps his wife by text message strikes me as perhaps a tad lacking in such qualities


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> revolutions require people of bravery and integrity .


bravery maybe, integrity seems optional


----------



## Nice one (Oct 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> Maybe Brand could host a meeting with this guy, could be interesting



on the charlotte church show?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 26, 2014)

treelover said:


> Maybe Brand could host a meeting with this guy, could be interesting



Who would win in a fight you reckon? Jay or Brand?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> revolutions require people of bravery and integrity . Man who dumps his wife by text message strikes me as perhaps a tad lacking in such qualities


Poor Cockney Rebel (((cr))))


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Brand needs to exercise better judgement, but is he capable? It's too easy to get sucked into that conspiranoid shit.




If you're stupid or gullible enough. Conspiraloon = not worth the time of day.  Proclaiming yourself to be 'openminded' about batshit conspiraloonery = read rag to my anti-loon bull 

I don't like Russell Brand, his writing is intensely irritating and he strikes me as not nearly as smart as his vocabulary makes him think. He seems to have read plenty of books (?), but I'm not sure at all about his judgement of what he's read (see conspiraloonery above)

And as said above




			
				PoorButNotaChav said:
			
		

> I've been suspicious of Russell Brand's revolutionary campaign and the way the book has been published and promoted confirms my suspicions. He has millions of Twitter followers and he has his own website so free distribution or low-price sale were options in a way that they wouldn't be for a less well known political campaigner. However, he's signed a deal with a major publisher and the book has been released as a hardback in the run-up to Christmas. Why?
> 
> It's not about making money. It's not about getting his revolutionary message across to a wider audience. It's about getting Russell Brand on TV and in the newspapers which is something major publishing companies can help him do. It's an ego trip. It's attention seeking. Making another film, doing another stand-up tour or writing My Booky Wook 3 wouldn't make him stand out much so during a bout of cognitive dissonance he came up with the idea of becoming a revolutionary and a year on he's still not really thought the idea through. However, that's not important because he's having a go at Fox News again, he's on Newsnight again and he's in The Guardian again.
> 
> It's not about promoting revolution. It's about promoting Russell Brand.



Spot on really.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 27, 2014)

..has this been linked yet..

http://www.timeout.com/london/comedy/russell-brand-interview-fuck-those-400-pricks-in-parliament


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 27, 2014)

I think Julian Cope might be a better bet for the role of "people's debt collector":



Lyrics probably NSFW, btw.


----------



## gosub (Oct 27, 2014)

Anyone know exactly when Das kapital was published, I can get 1867, but I'm after the month- did Mr Marx have one eye on the the Xmas publishing market when he released his tome?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2014)

gosub said:


> Anyone know exactly when Das kapital was published, I can get 1867, but I'm after the month- did Mr Marx have one eye on the the Xmas publishing market when he released his tome?



IIRC he just missed super-thursday, but the following year he got out the (Stephen Fry narrated) audio-book in good time for stocking fillers.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> just parasiting on it



and helping to push it to the right - popular front lame liberalism - by refusing to use their potential weight to raise class-based actions or demands


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I mean in an extremely visible, mass collective way, where the people really enact change, and the government has no choice but to jail the bankers, change the laws, and eventually be dismantled.



Still unclear.



> Nope. Like I always said, he is too much of a messer to be taken seriously, and doesnt want to be foisted onto any pedestal. As for violence? Not sure where you got that from. Russell Brand has always declared himself a pacifist - to the point of being a flower child hippy....



Whenever the word 'revolution' is mentioned, people will often claim it involves violence and will cite examples like the French Revolution and the Terror that followed.



> I mean a quasi political movement that documents the anger of the times, like punk. Dont try and allude that a huge cultural shift has happened musically, under peoples nose and they havent yet cottoned onto it. It hasnt.



So what you're pining for is a new youth subculture. Is that it? As for the rest of your comment, it's balls. Aren't you the one who keeps claiming Pete Doherty and the Libertines are the new white hope? Laughable.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Part of the problem as I see it, is that many people want to *join* a movement, rather than co-create it. Some people are happier being followers, rather than taking responsibility for what they do - generally missing the point that if the state chooses to say that you're responsible, you'll be held responsible.
> Brand is a match that might or might not light a flame. That's all. People who put faith in him being a great revolutionary leader miss the point: that it's not about following Russell, it's about acting for communal interests against those who'd strip you of them.


Sure but Cheesy is suggesting that he's the new messiah and we should follow him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Whenever the word 'revolution' is mentioned, people will often claim it involves violence and will cite examples like the French Revolution and the Terror that followed.




and no one ever mentions the communards massacre either. Just all the guillotined nobles.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and no one ever mentions the communards massacre either. Just all the guillotined nobles.


Indeed.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 27, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Still unclear.



Nowt unclear about saying that the protestors thus far havent made much of an impact.





nino_savatte said:


> Whenever the word 'revolution' is mentioned, people will often claim it involves violence and will cite examples like the French Revolution and the Terror that followed.



there has been violence in the past but neednt be that way. How it can be achieved without violence, but in a peaceful manner is Brand's manifesto i guess.





nino_savatte said:


> So what you're pining for is a new youth subculture. Is that it? As for the rest of your comment, it's balls. Aren't you the one who keeps claiming Pete Doherty and the Libertines are the new white hope? Laughable.



I'm not 'pining' for anything, but im suprised that the state of society hasnt fuelled more anger - or should i say fury - from musicians who have fire in their belly representing the disenfrancised.... there should have been a load of brilliant, angry bands documenting the state of the times - there hasnt been. Never heard of the ones you mentioned either.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 27, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Sure but Cheesy is suggesting that he's the new messiah and we should follow him.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

No brilliant angry bands documenting the times, apart from all these bands you've never heard of.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Nowt unclear about saying that the protestors thus far havent made much of an impact.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lefteri (Oct 27, 2014)

Loads of talk on here about the profits of his book without the recognition that he's using them all for charitable purposes, setting up some sort of foundation, I forget the details - I don't disagree that there is a huge element of self-promotion though


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 27, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> If you're stupid or gullible enough. Conspiraloon = not worth the time of day.  Proclaiming yourself to be 'openminded' about batshit conspiraloonery = read rag to my anti-loon bull
> 
> I don't like Russell Brand, his writing is intensely irritating and he strikes me as not nearly as smart as his vocabulary makes him think. He seems to have read plenty of books (?), but I'm not sure at all about his judgement of what he's read (see conspiraloonery above)
> 
> ...


I don't really agree. It seems entirely simplistic to dismiss what he's saying as mere self promortion. he's not exactly short of money so he doesn't need to write a book about his political views just to enhance his profile. he's already famous. I think this is a lazy accusation.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

lefteri said:


> Loads of talk on here about the profits of his book without the recognition that he's using them all for charitable purposes, setting up some sort of foundation, I forget the details - I don't disagree that there is a huge element of self-promotion though


Social enterprises:



> . Brand told The Guardian: "I'm going to use all the money now for social enterprises."
> 
> Sadly for readers of _Third Sector_, Brand went on to say: "We need systemic change, not charity." This is eerily similar to the message spelled out by the government's enterprise adviser Lord Young of Graffham at the Social Economy Alliance's fringe event at this year's Conservative Party conference. He told us that social enterprise was a concept that differed fundamentally from charity. With almost half of all UK charities already identifying themselves as social enterprises, it is clear there's work to be done to educate politicians and celebrities.



It's the advance he's promised to buy a juice bar with. The sales, nah.

Anyone who claims to be on our side who maintains their wealth rather than putting the overwhelming majority of it at the disposal of those movements and people they say they support loses a huge chunk of credibility and goodwill in my eyes. And before anyone says but what about Engels - _that's precisely what he did._


----------



## lefteri (Oct 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't really agree. It seems entirely simplistic to dismiss what he's saying as mere self promortion. he's not exactly short of money so he doesn't need to write a book about his political views just to enhance his profile. he's already famous. I think this is a lazy accusation.



You're confusing riches with profile surely


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't really agree. It seems entirely simplistic to dismiss what he's saying as mere self promortion. he's not exactly short of money so he doesn't need to write a book about his political views just to enhance his profile. he's already famous. I think this is a lazy accusation.


Ego does not equal money.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

He says in the timeout interview up there he's using the profits from the book for a recovery cafe fwiw (don't disagree with your general point though)


----------



## lefteri (Oct 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Social enterprises:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree

Seems he's being economical with the truth then, but to be pedantic he won't get sales, he'll get share of profit after advance has been deducted,  the amount of which will depend on the deal struck -of course we'll never know these details


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> He says in the timeout interview up there he's using the profits from the book for a recovery cafe fwiw (don't disagree with your general point though)


He says profits there - in other interviews its changed to advance.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 27, 2014)

lefteri said:


> You're confusing riches with profile surely


I think he's genuine about what he's doing, whether it's the best way to objectively achieve the chance we need is another matter. But he's allowed to be somewhat fallible in his thinking in that regard surely? He's not advocating people send him money or do anything harmful. I don't really get the self promotion angle. I suppose he could have self published and given the book away free, but that's not necessarily evidence he's false.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 27, 2014)

Nina - i wouldnt have a clue what is in the charts - all the music i listen to is from the 40s and the 60's. The Libertines were one exceptional band for me, and I think the music they made was extraordinary - and political - but they were a one off and a complete fuck up. Pete DID fuck it up and they wont go back....

Since then i have not noted any bands of cultural significance- we need bands like Rage Againist the Machine and The Sex Pistols - i mean ANGRY bands relentlessly exposing the consistent lies we are being told and disenfranchisement that we are experiencing - not only in London, but around the world.

if you can truly say that there are brilliant bands out there making some noise that is documenting the times, tell us all about it....there have always been some good underbelly bands around...NoFx is one of my favourites, but they have been around since the 90's...i mean new bands with fire in their belly


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 27, 2014)

Have a listen to Sleaford Mods, cheesy


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Nina - i wouldnt have a clue what is in the charts - all the music i listen to is from the 40s and the 60's. The Libertines were one exceptional band for me, and I think the music they made was extraordinary - and political - but they were a one off and a complete fuck up. Pete DID fuck it up and they wont go back....
> 
> Since then i have not noted any bands of cultural significance- we need bands like Rage Againist the Machine and The Sex Pistols - i mean ANGRY bands relentlessly exposing the consistent lies we are being told and disenfranchisement that we are experiencing - not only in London, but around the world.
> 
> if you can truly say that there are brilliant bands out there making some noise that is documenting the times, tell us all about it....there have always been some good underbelly bands around...NoFx is one of my favourites, but they have been around since the 90's...i mean new bands with fire in their belly


And they have to in the classic four white blokes with guitars format do they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Nina - i wouldnt have a clue what is in the charts - all the music i listen to is from the 40s and the 60's. The Libertines were one exceptional band for me, and I think the music they made was extraordinary - and political - but they were a one off and a complete fuck up. Pete DID fuck it up and they wont go back....
> 
> Since then i have not noted any bands of cultural significance- we need bands like Rage Againist the Machine and The Sex Pistols - i mean ANGRY bands relentlessly documenting the of pisstaking and consistently being lied to and disenfranchisement that we are experiencing - not only in London, but around the world.


you seem interested in this lying and disenfranchisement but disregard that perhaps the best album about disenfranchisement (if not lying) may be sham69's 'that's life'.

however, it's long been my understanding that it was a musician's role to make music and not their role to relentlessly document the pisstaking etc all around the world, which would in any event get in the way of their making the music they wanted to do in the first place


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2014)

carl barrat and the jackals new single is quite good. Not angry tho.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 27, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Have a listen to Sleaford Mods, cheesy



okay. I will listen to any bands people recommend, with an open mind. I would LOVE to think that we have our own form of infuriated punk today....the world needs it...


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And they have to in the classic four white blokes with guitars format do they?



since when were Rage Against the Machine four white lads??


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2014)

Brand was on the Start The Week on R4, it was like listening to a different person, no histrionics, well a little, cogently argued ideas, including a rebuffal that he is just about 'not voting', and referencing academics like Graeber, and for me importantly he didn't promote new grand narratives, but locally focussed activities and even better attacked inequality, food banks, etc.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> carl barrat and the jackals new single is quite good. Not angry tho.



Carl is alright on his own...have seen him live a few times, but bored with it now


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> since when were Rage Against the Machine four white lads??


Alright - four blokes with guitars.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 27, 2014)

lefteri said:


> I agree
> 
> Seems he's being economical with the truth then, but to be pedantic he won't get sales, he'll get share of profit after advance has been deducted,  the amount of which will depend on the deal struck -of course we'll never know these details


So he signs a book deal and he's Public Enemy 1?

Seriously?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 27, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> okay. I will listen to any bands people recommend, with an open mind. I would LOVE to think that we have our own form of infuriated punk today....the world needs it...



Plenty of angry hip hop acts. Conscious and political reggae too.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

No one said any such thing.  

Seriously.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2014)

braintax is a quality one for angry, politically aware uk hip-hop.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

No shades of grey allowed sorry. Its either all good or beyond the pale.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 27, 2014)

gosub said:


> Anyone know exactly when Das kapital was published, I can get 1867, but I'm after the month- did Mr Marx have one eye on the the Xmas publishing market when he released his tome?



I believe it was published two weeks before that year's London Anarchist Bookfair. He knew his readership.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> Brand was on the Start The Week on R4, it was like listening to a different person, no histrionics, well a little, cogently argued ideas, including a rebuffal that he is just about 'not voting', and referencing academics like Graeber, and for me importantly he didn't promote new grand narratives, but locally focussed activities and even better attacked inequality, food banks, etc.


i'd be better pleased if he referenced academics who weren't graeber


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd be better pleased if he referenced academics who weren't graeber


Or didn't rely on academics as a shorthand short cut to credibility with journos at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Or didn't rely on academics as a shorthand short cut to credibility with journos at all.


it would be good if he dropped a couple of names which showed he knew what he was talking about, even e.p. thompson or mike davis for fuck's sake.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Sure but Cheesy is suggesting that he's the new messiah and we should follow him.



Because Cheesy believes (as many do) that revolutions need figureheads. The problem with that is it generally implies some kind of top-down "revolutionary" organisation behind the figurehead - a vanguard, if you will  - and the imposition of an ideology on the class. Russell calls himself an anarchist, but while he may be anar*chic*, the politics he's so far enunciated are inchoate. They're neither fish nor fowl.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be good if he dropped a couple of names which showed he knew what he was talking about, even e.p. thompson or mike davis for fuck's sake.


i think the thing is, he relates to the celebrity-academic-activist thing as it mirrors his own experience. So graeber is the man right now, 25 years back it may have been negri...and so on. This is not a criticism of him for reading graeber but for his choice  to play the game of trying to impress journos, begging them to take him seriously on an intellectual level in effect (seem this many times with people from a w/c background who have read a lot). He -doesn't need to do that. No one does.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> i think the thing is, he relates to the celebrity-academic-activist thing as it mirrors his own experience. So graeber is the man right now, 25 years back it may have been negri...and so on. This is not a criticism of him for reading graeber but for his choice  to play the game of trying to impress journos, begging them to take him seriously on an intellectual level in effect (seem this many times with people from a w/c background who have read a lot). He -doesn't need to do that. No one does.


on the bright side, at least it wasn't slavoj zizek.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and no one ever mentions the communards massacre either. Just all the guillotined nobles.



People get so overcome by revolutionary romanticism that they forget that the revolution and the class are *always* betrayed.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> i think the thing is, he relates to the celebrity-academic-activist thing as it mirrors his own experience. So graeber is the man right now, 25 years back it may have been negri...and so on. This is not a criticism of him for reading graeber but for his choice  to play the game of trying to impress journos, begging them to take him seriously on an intellectual level in effect (seem this many times with people from a w/c background who have read a lot). He -doesn't need to do that. No one does.


i think hes met David Graeber at a couple of things (what we really need is a lefty Heat magazine to keep on top of these things). By his own admission he's too impatient to really read books, especially hard ones


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i think hes met David Graeber at a couple of things (what we really need is a lefty Heat magazine to keep on top of these things). By his own admission he's too impatient to really read books, especially hard ones


Things at which they were the celebs...


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Things at which they were the celebs...


well street demos/platforms etc
so yes


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I'm not 'pining' for anything, but im suprised that the state of society hasnt fuelled more anger - or should i say fury - from musicians who have fire in their belly representing the disenfrancised.... there should have been a load of brilliant, angry bands documenting the state of the times - there hasnt been. Never heard of the ones you mentioned either.



Jarvis Cocker made an excellent point about 10 years ago, as regards the seemingly apolitical stance of many popular musicians, which boiled down to "if you're not hungry, you don't get angry". Given the predominance of "fame school" alumni, manufactured groups and the like that populate the charts, there's little hunger there, so no urge for change from them.
It's a class thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> No brilliant angry bands documenting the times, apart from all these bands you've never heard of.



I think there's a difference in coverage, though.  I honestly believe that 30 years ago, politically-"outsider" popular music had more media venues through which to get an airing than it does now. I'm not basing this on any research, just on the fact that there seemed to be more programmers willing to take a chance back then.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think there's a difference in coverage, though.  I honestly believe that 30 years ago, politically-"outsider" popular music had more media venues through which to get an airing than it does now. I'm not basing this on any research, just on the fact that there seemed to be more programmers willing to take a chance back then.


also there were a fair few political Pop tunes - pop acts prepared to say something - i fear its too much to ask for the chucklebrothers to bring it back


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think there's a difference in coverage, though.  I honestly believe that 30 years ago, politically-"outsider" popular music had more media venues through which to get an airing than it does now. I'm not basing this on any research, just on the fact that there seemed to be more programmers willing to take a chance back then.



music's over as a dominant cultural force amongst the young, especially guitar music, its much more diverse and plural now, kids are just as into games, youtube, instragram etc.  thats why we've got a comedian in the cultural pseudorevolutionary role musos used to fill, Russell Brand is what cheesy wants, updated for the internet.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 27, 2014)

Also worth considering that 2009-11 was when dubstep went really dark and harsh, with Skrillex and the like, and this is what was being played on the student demos and what a lot of that age group were listening to, and it's not "Political" but it serves the same emotional outlet, there are political reasons why the music went the way it did, why people went for that sound rather than a softer one, like Burial's music.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

smokedout said:


> music's over as a dominant cultural force amongst the young, especially guitar music, its much more diverse and plural now, kids are just as into games, youtube, instragram etc.  thats why we've got a comedian in the cultural pseudorevolutionary role musos used to fill, Russell Brand is what cheesy wants, updated for the internet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

smokedout said:


> music's over as a dominant cultural force amongst the young, especially guitar music, its much more diverse and plural now, kids are just as into games, youtube, instragram etc.  thats why we've got a comedian in the cultural pseudorevolutionary role musos used to fill, Russell Brand is what cheesy wants, updated for the internet.



We should, however, ask ourselves *why* the above is the case, as there's an argument to be made that the "diversity" and "pluralism" is to some extent engineered (the old "99 channels, and nothing on" phenomenon) as a method of using "spectacle" to draw peoples' attention away from ideas of dissent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem interested in this lying and disenfranchisement but disregard that perhaps the best album about disenfranchisement (if not lying) may be sham69's 'that's life'.
> 
> however, it's long been my understanding that it was a musician's role to make music and not their role to relentlessly document the pisstaking etc all around the world, which would in any event get in the way of their making the music they wanted to do in the first place


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> We should, however, ask ourselves *why* the above is the case, as there's an argument to be made that the "diversity" and "pluralism" is to some extent engineered (the old "99 channels, and nothing on" phenomenon) as a method of using "spectacle" to draw peoples' attention away from ideas of dissent.



I think partly because you can only get so far with three chords and a drumkit, and the emergence of electronic music, and the possibility of every sound imaginable at your disposal over 20 years ago created the ultimate technological reovlution - theres no new electric guitar, or wall of sound, or breakbeat to be discovered, its all been done.

actually thats not got much to do with what you said, but i think its why music has declined in cultural dominance, it had a built in end date in the form of the chromatic scale.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

smokedout said:


> the ultimate technological reovlution


surely that's when one man can take on the world and win.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471780790/ref=nosim/globalguerril-20


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2014)

also worth remembering that bar a fairly small number of bands. hip hop artists etc, most of the rock and roll revolutioneries were wankers, brand and 4chan are not much different to lennon and alice cooper


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> surely that's when one man can take on the world and win.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471780790/ref=nosim/globalguerril-20



and yet we lost.  turns out guns are better than guitars.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

smokedout said:


> and yet we lost.  turns out guns are better than guitars.


yeh you don't need to know three chords to play a tune people will listen to


----------



## lefteri (Oct 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So he signs a book deal and he's Public Enemy 1?
> 
> Seriously?



When did I say that, are you for real?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 27, 2014)

lefteri said:


> When did I say that, are you for real?


No, i'm a figment of your imagination.


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> We should, however, ask ourselves *why* the above is the case, as there's an argument to be made that the "diversity" and "pluralism" is to some extent engineered (the old "99 channels, and nothing on" phenomenon) as a method of using "spectacle" to draw peoples' attention away from ideas of dissent.



http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...side-pay-per-laugh-innovations-silicon-valley
This article touches on that a bit


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> No, i'm a figment of your imagination.


i am not sure anyone can - or would want to - imagine you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

lefteri said:


> When did I say that, are you for real?


careful or he'll wish the cancer on you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2014)

would it be fair to compare Brand with that Grillo bloke?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> would it be fair to compare Brand with that Grillo bloke?


give me an example of the comparison you had in mind. is he fatter, taller, thinner, cleverer, more short-sighted?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> would it be fair to compare Brand with that Grillo bloke?


 not really


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> give me an example of the comparison you had in mind. is he fatter, taller, thinner, cleverer, more short-sighted?




I was thinking- popular comedian, political etc

although he seems more popular (politicaly) than brand

I'm fairly ignorant of italian politics which is why I asked if its fair (read useful) to make the comparison


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I was thinking- popular comedian, political etc
> 
> although he seems more popular (politicaly) than brand
> 
> I'm fairly ignorant of italian politics which is why I asked if its fair (read useful) to make the comparison


i would lay a bet that grillo eats pizza less frequently than russell brand. despite grillo being italian.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2014)

smokedout said:


> music's over as a dominant cultural force amongst the young, especially guitar music, its much more diverse and plural now, kids are just as into games, youtube, instragram etc.  thats why we've got a comedian in the cultural pseudorevolutionary role musos used to fill, Russell Brand is what cheesy wants, updated for the internet.


 
i kind of agree here, but then again don't - it paints a picture of a de-politicised and apathetic youth...i think what many young people have is good political awareness, lots of healthy skepticism and cynicism, but covered in a blanket of Capitalist Realism, realpolitik, and a lack of faith in the organised left alternatives in the UK - true of adults too. I wouldnt blame instagram for a lack of revolutionary fervour


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i kind of agree here, but then again don't - it paints a picture of a de-politicised and apathetic youth...i think what many young people have is good political awareness, lots of healthy skepticism and cynicism, but covered in a blanket of Capitalist Realism, realpolitik, and a lack of faith in the organised left alternatives in the UK - true of adults too. I wouldnt blame instagram for a lack of revolutionary fervour


i blame instagram for its lack of revolutionary fervour


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 27, 2014)

smokedout said:


> also worth remembering that bar a fairly small number of bands. hip hop artists etc, most of the rock and roll revolutioneries were wankers, brand and 4chan are not much different to lennon and alice cooper



Iggy Pop voted for Reagan.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jarvis Cocker made an excellent point about 10 years ago, as regards the seemingly apolitical stance of many popular musicians, which boiled down to "if you're not hungry, you don't get angry". Given the predominance of "fame school" alumni, manufactured groups and the like that populate the charts, there's little hunger there, so no urge for change from them.
> It's a class thing.



I may well have missed it but where was politics in Pulp's music?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I may well have missed it but where was politics in Pulp's music?


If he was talking for himself, I'd say that "Running the world" pretty much makes up for any deficiency of his former band.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 27, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I may well have missed it but where was politics in Pulp's music?



Have a listen to Common People


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 27, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Have a listen to Common People


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

Pulp were pretty political. Maybe not firebrand socialism in every song, but TBH who wants to hear that anyway?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 27, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I may well have missed it but where was politics in Pulp's music?


 
you missed it good and proper.

there's loads of politics in their work. 

as blagsta says, common people is probably the most famous.  but joyriders, weeds, cocaine socialism, and the trees off the top of my head.  and that's just "proper" politics.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2014)

common people slips under the radar sometimes cos its so unashamedly indie poppy.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 27, 2014)

Personally for politics and music it's always been about The Clash for me. But each to their own I guess.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I may well have missed it but where was politics in Pulp's music?



Have you actually listened to the lyrics of "Common People"? Class politics at its best.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

maybe not at it's best, but certainly well expressed in the medium of indie-pop music.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 27, 2014)

Re politics and music is part of it the fact that it's so hard to survive without a job nowadays and if you've got a job you haven't got time to do music?

People always wax a bit lyrical about the good old days of "the dole".  I don't know if that's a real factor.


----------



## youngian (Oct 27, 2014)

Not overly impressed by Brand's press tour which heavily relies on talking over interviewers and critics in order to put words into their mouth. His points are mainly mood music and sketching the landscape but he's at least connecting with people who most politicians are failing to do. And if the BBC wants a ratings boost from a half-baked political populist, I'd rather it was Brand than that cunt Farage every other night.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 27, 2014)

Jarvis Cocker rather than pulp, from a couple of years ago, lyrics are nsfw, no question of this being political or not 



Spoiler


----------



## elbows (Oct 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be good if he dropped a couple of names which showed he knew what he was talking about, even e.p. thompson or mike davis for fuck's sake.



Here are names he drops in the intro to his book:

Johann Hari
Adam Curtis
Dave Graeber
Daniel Pinchbeck
Dave DeGraw
Naomi Klein
Noam Chomsky
Matt Stoller
Helena Norberg-Hodge
Peter Tatchell
Edward Slingerland
Thomas Piketty

There are others, including abstinence recovery and transcendental meditation types, but I'm sure the above are more than enough to get the gist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

elbows said:


> Here are names he drops in the intro to his book:
> 
> 
> Adam Curtis
> ...


i've removed johann hari and peter tatchell, who are not to the best of my knowledge academics. i'm sure there's one or two left who aren't academics either.


----------



## elbows (Oct 27, 2014)

Indeed there are several authors there who would not count as academics.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 27, 2014)

Brand is on my radio now.

Gawd that man is a smug wanker!


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 27, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> you missed it good and proper.
> 
> there's loads of politics in their work.
> 
> as blagsta says, common people is probably the most famous.  but joyriders, weeds, cocaine socialism, and the trees off the top of my head.  and that's just "proper" politics.


_I Spy_ is another example, hell there's (pretty obvious) political refs/allegory's  in virtually every song on _Different Class._


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2014)

I'm struggling to think of a Pulp song that isn't political


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm struggling to think of a Pulp song that isn't political


why?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> why?


 
Well, alright I'm not struggling but if I could be arsed to try and think of one it would be a struggle


----------



## PoorButNotAChav (Oct 28, 2014)

I wouldn't say Pulp released a lot of political songs but as well as directly political songs (such as Cocaine Socialism and The Day After The Revolution) they also had songs containing social commentary (like Joyriders, Common People, Mis-Shapes, Sorted For E's & Wizz, I Spy, Mile End and Weeds).  Add in the story-based songs (which Pulp tended to favour) and the love songs and you have a fantastic and varied band.  I'd say they were in the same league as The Smiths.  This Is Hardcore is an under-rated album and Different Class is almost as good as Strangeways, Here We Come.

I wish one or both of them were together now, writing about the era of the Coalition, UKIP or the Rotherham scandal.  There's so much that is wrong that you would hope musicians or comedians would write about but there are very few people who are willing and able to do it well and get their ideas out to a mass audience.  At the moment Stewart Lee is in a league of his own.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2014)

I think Frankie Boyle's allright.


----------



## treelover (Oct 28, 2014)

PoorButNotAChav said:


> I wouldn't say Pulp released a lot of political songs but as well as directly political songs (such as Cocaine Socialism and The Day After The Revolution) they also had songs containing social commentary (like Joyriders, Common People, Mis-Shapes, Sorted For E's & Wizz, I Spy, Mile End and Weeds).  Add in the story-based songs (which Pulp tended to favour) and the love songs and you have a fantastic and varied band.  I'd say they were in the same league as The Smiths.  This Is Hardcore is an under-rated album and Different Class is almost as good as Strangeways, Here We Come.
> 
> I wish one or both of them were together now, writing about the era of the Coalition, UKIP or the Rotherham scandal.  There's so much that is wrong that you would hope musicians or comedians would write about but there are very few people who are willing and able to do it well and get their ideas out to a mass audience.  At the moment Stewart Lee is in a league of his own.



I like your posts but not your title, why are you denigrating 'chavs'


----------



## PoorButNotAChav (Oct 28, 2014)

treelover said:


> I like your posts but not your title, why are you denigrating 'chavs'



I've explained this before on another thread.  It's the username I used on The Guardian's website which I picked years ago in response to an article by some members of the Fabian Society who wanted the word "chav" banned and wrote "You cannot consider yourself of the left and use the word".  I picked "PoorButNotAChav" because I was pointing out that some chavs are not  poor and some poor people are not chavs.  The name wasn't chosen to denigrate chavs.  It was chosen to differentiate.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/equality.language

However, I'm prepared to denigrate chavs.  I see no contradiction between being "of the left" and disliking chavs and their predecessors such as townies.  There might have been a revolution in this country (or at least no Tory-led coalition government) if thousands of young people had been more interested in politics, socialism and bringing down the system than in getting pissed, consumerism and battering goths and students and the Labour Party hadn't been taken over by the likes of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair and sold its soul to the City of London and Rupert Murdoch.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2014)

Crikey.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2014)




----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2014)

it's difficult to know where to start with that.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> common people slips under the radar sometimes cos its so unashamedly indie poppy.



Never liked it. All the finger pointing and stuff...tiresome. I dont mean the lyrics...i mean the melody and image of the band...


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 28, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Never liked it. All the finger pointing and stuff...tiresome. I dont mean the lyrics...i mean the melody and image of the band...



You don't _have _to do that finger pointy dance, its not compulsory.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

The guitarist ( i think it was him) was well involved in miners strike support - helping out on flying pickets and other stuff.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Oct 28, 2014)

PoorButNotAChav said:


> I've explained this before on another thread.  It's the username I used on The Guardian's website which I picked years ago in response to an article by some members of the Fabian Society who wanted the word "chav" banned and wrote "You cannot consider yourself of the left and use the word".  I picked "PoorButNotAChav" because I was pointing out that some chavs are not  poor and some poor people are not chavs.  The name wasn't chosen to denigrate chavs.  It was chosen to differentiate.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/equality.language
> 
> However, I'm prepared to denigrate chavs.  I see no contradiction between being "of the left" and disliking chavs and their predecessors such as townies.  There might have been a revolution in this country (or at least no Tory-led coalition government) if thousands of young people had been more interested in politics, socialism and bringing down the system than in getting pissed, consumerism and battering goths and students and the Labour Party hadn't been taken over by the likes of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair and sold its soul to the City of London and Rupert Murdoch.



So the students and goths didn't climb on board the capitalist system getting jobs in banking and I.T. ex thus diminishing any prospect of a revolution.
You sound like a swappie .


----------



## Limerick Red (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The guitarist ( i think it was him) was well involved in miners strike support - helping out on flying pickets and other stuff.


Weren't they accapella ?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 28, 2014)

PoorButNotAChav said:


> I've explained this before on another thread.  It's the username I used on The Guardian's website which I picked years ago in response to an article by some members of the Fabian Society who wanted the word "chav" banned and wrote "You cannot consider yourself of the left and use the word".  I picked "PoorButNotAChav" because I was pointing out that some chavs are not  poor and some poor people are not chavs.  The name wasn't chosen to denigrate chavs.  It was chosen to differentiate.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/equality.language
> 
> However, I'm prepared to denigrate chavs.  I see no contradiction between being "of the left" and disliking chavs and their predecessors such as townies.  There might have been a revolution in this country (or at least no Tory-led coalition government) if thousands of young people had been more interested in politics, socialism and bringing down the system than in getting pissed, consumerism and battering goths and students and the Labour Party hadn't been taken over by the likes of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair and sold its soul to the City of London and Rupert Murdoch.



what a load of wank.


----------



## treelover (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The guitarist ( i think it was him) was well involved in miners strike support - helping out on flying pickets and other stuff.



Russell Senior has co-wrote a musical about the Miners Strike and the 80's, not sure if it will see the light of day though


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2014)

I got sent this. I was unable to watch more than a minute but perhaps others will find it interesting.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

Is it Tracey barlow?


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is it Tracey barlow?





> Black Robin, a masked anarchist persona, releases a devastating
> statement to Russell Brand on YouTube and Blog, warning him that he is
> on the side of the elite:
> http://blackrobinanarchy.blogspot.nl/2014/10/russell-brand-anarchist-critique-of-his.html


_Crushing._


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Googly-eyed ninja FTW!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

All a little joke but, to think they need to make the joke.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

editor said:


> I got sent this. I was unable to watch more than a minute but perhaps others will find it interesting.



Do you know roughly who sent it to you, and where else they sent it?


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> Do you know roughly who sent it to you, and where else they sent it?


It was a Mr Black Robin. Why do you ask?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

editor said:


> It was a Mr Black Robin. Why do you ask?



Just wondering both who he is and how likely the video is to catch the attention of Russell Brand.


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> Just wondering both who he is and how likely the video is to catch the attention of Russell Brand.


(a) Don't know and (b) hugely unlikely I'd imagine. 

Did you sit through the whole thing?


----------



## 8115 (Oct 28, 2014)

editor said:


> (a) Don't know and (b) hugely unlikely I'd imagine.
> 
> Did you sit through the whole thing?


I read the transcript. There was a disappointing lack of jokes.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

editor said:


> (a) Don't know and (b) hugely unlikely I'd imagine.
> 
> Did you sit through the whole thing?



Yeah, had it on in the background.  Broadly reasonable points made - thought RB might actually find some of it interesting if it got to him.  Though at times wasn't sure if it was Beaker in a ninja costume or Will Self having a laugh.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> Yeah, had it on in the background.  Broadly reasonable points made - thought RB might actually find some of it interesting if it got to him.  Though at times wasn't sure if it was Beaker in a ninja costume or Will Self having a laugh.


I thought will self simply because of the posho accent. If it's not a joke and they are about being embedded in communities  with fuxing kendo nagasaki masks on.

Nah, some poshoes on the internet read some stuff out.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

8115 said:


> I read the transcript. There was a disappointing lack of jokes.



He deserves some props for 'left-wing Nigel Farage', though.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> He deserves some props for 'left-wing Nigel Farage', though.


If that's what passes for anarchist humour things are in a bad way.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2014)

8115 said:


> If that's what passes for anarchist humour things are in a bad way.


If that's what passes for anarchist humour things are in a bad way.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 29, 2014)

Don't google anarchist humour, it's all badly drawn comics and lightbulb jokes.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 29, 2014)

8115 said:


> Don't google anarchist humour, it's all badly drawn comics and lightbulb jokes.



You forgot the herbal tea.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 29, 2014)

8115 said:


> Don't google anarchist humour, it's all badly drawn comics and lightbulb jokes.



not anarchist, but close enough:

"What do you get if you cross a situationist with a mafioso? A guy who makes you an offer you can’t understand."


----------



## rekil (Oct 30, 2014)

Swappies on the bandwagon.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jarvis Cocker made an excellent point about 10 years ago, as regards the seemingly apolitical stance of many popular musicians, which boiled down to "if you're not hungry, you don't get angry". Given the predominance of "fame school" alumni, manufactured groups and the like that populate the charts, there's little hunger there, so no urge for change from them.
> It's a class thing.



From my observations most musicians come from a middle class backgrounds, any anger is borne from teenage angst... It subsides once the money rolls in...

I know a lot of people don't agree with me on here but I find Russel Brand a hypocrite, he may make some pertinent points, but he could at least lead by example and give most of his dosh away if he truly feels the way he does.

I have always felt this way ever since Geldof spouted at Live Aid 'give us your fucking money'. Well Bob and Bono 'Give us your fucking money' 

Live Aid raised about 30 million, between them Geldof and Bono (main players in Band Aid) they are pupportedly worth £550 million . Brand is heading that way too. It's not just Bankers that generate telephone number wealth.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 31, 2014)

He probably could stand to put some of his money where his mouth is. But I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect him or anyone to just give all their money away. If he's a tax dodger like Bonovox (or as much of a pious hypocrit cunt, whichi don't htink he is) then fair enough. But this is bordering on the politics of envy. That said, I wish I had that kind of money!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

Why is it ridiculous to expect someone to give their money away?


----------



## JTG (Oct 31, 2014)

Batboy said:


> From my observations most musicians come from a middle class backgrounds,


Well you're not observing very well are you?


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

Hot tip:

Russell Brand's _Revolution_ on sale for half price at WHSmiths in Wood Green.

Please form a disorderly queue


----------



## Batboy (Nov 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> Well you're not observing very well are you?



I think you will find I am right...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9373000/9373158.stm

Also musicians are not just about rock and roll bands or young kids on council estates sampling in their bedrooms those that work in the music industry include opera, classical jazz, stage work and career musicians who have normally worked hard studying and having piano lessons etc. music as a career is largely a middle class aspiration.

if they are from working class backgrounds and are very successful they are not giving much of their ludicrous wealth away. They are not much different to Essex barrow boy city dealers done good who have made good earning millions. And that is the crux, Brand and others can bleat all they like about the inequalities out there, but they would be mightily pissed off to see 75% of their wealth redistributed. It's always somebody else's fault and problem. Hypocrites whatever their social backgrounds.


----------



## Batboy (Nov 1, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> He probably could stand to put some of his money where his mouth is. But I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect him or anyone to just give all their money away. If he's a tax dodger like Bonovox (or as much of a pious hypocrit cunt, whichi don't htink he is) then fair enough. But this is bordering on the politics of envy. That said, I wish I had that kind of money!



I never suggest giving _all _his money away. But how much money or wealth does one person really need?  . Does anyone really need more than say 10 or even 5 million? 

Brand if he is genuine should lead by example. He could well end up in Bono or Geldoff territory. Even just spouting off this stuff elevates his publicity and makes him more money, ironic....


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 1, 2014)

Batboy said:


> I never suggest giving _all _his money away. But how much money or wealth does one person really need?  . Does anyone really need more than say 10 or even 5 million?
> 
> Brand if he is genuine should lead by example. He could well end up in Bono or Geldoff territory. Even just spouting off this stuff elevates his publicity and makes him more money, ironic....


Assuming he gives no money to anyone, how would him donating be leading by example?


----------



## rekil (Nov 1, 2014)

He threatened to sue Suzanne Moore over her ‘ghost written sub Chomskyian woo’ line. Rumours about Hari's level of involvement abound.


----------



## poului (Nov 1, 2014)

copliker said:


> He threatened to sue Suzanne Moore over her ‘ghost written sub Chomskyian woo’ line. Rumours about Hari's level of involvement abound.



Not a good look.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2014)

_ghost written sub chomskian woo_ is a good line.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2014)

in fact, if I were Brand that'd be the title of my next book.


----------



## rekil (Nov 1, 2014)

poului said:


> Not a good look.


 I suspect he knows very little about it. His management might employ an agency that will trawl the press on behalf of their clients, looking for mentions; positive, negative and anything potentially libellous. A friend of mine used to do it, reading all the papers every day to see who's calling Bono a cunt and checking that products have been slipped into articles as agreed. She used to keep all the best local news clippings for herself, one of the most notable being - 'Half Naked Drunken Kiltimagh Man Claimed He Could Do As He Liked'


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2014)

copliker said:


> 'Half Naked Drunken Kiltimagh Man Claimed He Could Do As He Liked'


actually, this would be better.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2014)

> This article was amended on 31 October 2014. An earlier version said ‘A lot of what he says is ghostwritten sub-Chomskyian woo’. This has been corrected.




Albeit prefixed, I reckon Noam's got more reason to sue Moore.


----------



## andysays (Nov 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> in fact, if I were Brand that'd be the title of my next book.



Presumably Moore could then counter-sue Brand.

This shit is getting complicated. Maybe we need a new thread titled


> Commentariat vs other commentariat: who's sueing who


----------



## JTG (Nov 1, 2014)

Batboy said:


> I think you will find I am right...
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9373000/9373158.stm
> 
> ...


You said 'musicians', not 'successful chart acts'


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 1, 2014)

copliker said:


> 'Half Naked Drunken Kiltimagh Man Claimed He Could Do As He Liked'





killer b said:


> actually, this would be better.



Not bad.


----------



## Batboy (Nov 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> You said 'musicians', not 'successful chart acts'



Most musicians


Awesome Wells said:


> Assuming he gives no money to anyone, how would him donating be leading by example?



Well if he wants to spout off about social injustice and greed give a huge chunk of his money back into the system and invite say the following to do likewise

Rod Stewart 172 million
Bono 600 million
Bob Geldoff 150 million
Roger Daltry 65 million
Paul McCartney 1.2 billion
Andrew Lloyd Webber 1.2 billion
Pete Townsend 95 million
Mick Jagger 360 million
Ronnie Wood 340 million
Bernie Taupin 450 million
Elton John 440 million
Sting 270 million
David Bowie 230 million
Tim Rice 230 million
Rings Starr 210 million
Ozzie Ozbourne 220 million
Eric Clapton 200 million
Sean Lennon 200 million
Jimmy Page 170 million
Roger Waters 157 million
Brian May 135 million
David Gilmour 127 million
George Michael 135 million


   * £7140 million or 7.14 billion



that would be leading by example...
It won't happen of course....


* alleged wealth in dollars.


----------



## Batboy (Nov 2, 2014)

JTG said:


> You said 'musicians', not 'successful chart acts'



Yes most musicians I would say come from middle class backgrounds.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

nonsense. Schools, churches, family or friends of family all get w/c kids into music and there are tons of w/c musicians. You can find them playing in pubs, fairs etc. What you are probably confusing is the visible outlet for artistry with the entirety of it. Would you claim there are no working class poets? No working class painters?

or is art in your head a middle class pursuit, too good for the likes of us?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 2, 2014)

Batboy said:


> Most musicians
> 
> 
> Well if he wants to spout off about social injustice and greed give a huge chunk of his money back into the system and invite say the following to do likewise
> ...


He's not advocating rich people give their money to charity. Not that I've heard; perhaps his book says different. He's also not seeking to lead.


----------



## rorymac (Nov 2, 2014)

How do folks know how much he is worth ? How do folks know he doesn't give away a lot ?
His message is simple .. there needs to be a revolution of thought to shift the paradigm and that. We weren't born this stupid godammit


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 2, 2014)

what is a revolution of thought?


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> what is a revolution of thought?



One part new age bibble. One part Adam Curtis documentary 'there is a policeman inside your head and he must be destroyed'. One part transcendental meditation, the meditation technique that anyone can learn, but you better go to an accredited teacher because its a business with trademarks don't you know (TM in more ways than one).


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2014)

elbows said:


> One part new age bibble. One part Adam Curtis documentary 'there is a policeman inside your head and he must be destroyed'. One part transcendental meditation, the meditation technique that anyone can learn, but you better go to an accredited teacher because its a business with trademarks don't you know (TM in more ways than one).


If Brand's book does call for a "revolution of thought" (?)...it sounds very much like the writer(s) are influenced by Emerson and other TMers. Don't the anonymous lot like all that Emerson individualism?


----------



## 8115 (Nov 2, 2014)

Ugh. Revolution of thought. See! It's easy really.


----------



## SovietArmy (Nov 2, 2014)

Ah is easy to call for revolution for those whom got plenty money are those celebrities living in reality.


----------



## rorymac (Nov 2, 2014)

You don't need to pay to transcendentally meditate .. definitely not ! I got my mate doing it and he's fucking bats with a million miles an hour brain. Mind you when he came round he called me a cunt and isn't talking to me at the moment. NEVER pay for a mantra though .. fuck that !!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2014)

8115 said:


> Ugh. Revolution of thought. See! It's easy really.


 ..and only £9 in Asda.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2014)

rorymac said:


> You don't need to pay to transcendentally meditate .. definitely not ! I got my mate doing it and he's fucking bats with a million miles an hour brain. Mind you when he came round he called me a cunt and isn't talking to me at the moment. NEVER pay for a mantra though .. fuck that !!



Thats my entire point really though, by speaking of the official TM they are perpetuating a racket. Even if I thought revolution was going to start from within, why would I be praising TM instead of an open-source version that didn't involve people making a career out of looking up mantras on a crude chart?


----------



## rorymac (Nov 2, 2014)

I agree


----------



## rioted (Nov 2, 2014)

elbows said:


> Even if I thought revolution was going to start from within...


Which part of the party machine is it going to start in? Will revolution create socialists or will socialists create a revolution? Bottom up or top down? From within or imposed by some revolutionary correct agency? Butchersapron perhaps?


----------



## rorymac (Nov 2, 2014)

Butchers has to be up there .. needs to be in folks earpiece when they're addressing the nation ..  

'Stop fucking waffling about fucking spirituality .. May 13 1953 .. Ohio!! just say that you fucking moron .. Jesus Christ aaarrrgggh'


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 2, 2014)

can we assume then, if the revolution comes from within, that the reason there is still injustice and Bad Things is because there's something wrong with us, and not because of the system?  cos i meditate sometimes, so it can't be _my _fault.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2014)

change comes from the barrel of a gun, not from within. As the chairman probably didn't say


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> cos i meditate sometimes, so it can't be _my _fault.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 2, 2014)

I guess some degree of internal change is necessary such as change in some beliefs and assumptions.

Ie the belief of what a lifestyle should look like, that somehow we could have a fair society with less impact on the earth but nothing else would change.

In the civil rights movement in America I think people of all races had to question their own feelings and beliefs probably.

But I get the feeling that when people talk about changing their thoughts they mean in a deeper way than this and I'm not sure about that as a priority.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

Oh dear.

The author is a total knob, but, fucking hell.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2014)

well well. Good to see that time off to retrain worked out.


----------



## JTG (Nov 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> nonsense. Schools, churches, family or friends of family all get w/c kids into music and there are tons of w/c musicians. You can find them playing in pubs, fairs etc. What you are probably confusing is the visible outlet for artistry with the entirety of it. Would you claim there are no working class poets? No working class painters?
> 
> or is art in your head a middle class pursuit, too good for the likes of us?


 Absolutely. Total nonsense statement


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> The author is a total knob, but, fucking hell.



Ha, indeed, it's all gone a bit Nathan Barley rise of the idiots in my mind now. Not that I'm at all surprised, after all Brands youtube program is called 'the trews' for fucks sake.

I wonder how his investigation into Easeman is going. Actually I don't.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> The author is a total knob, but, fucking hell.



tbh, that author actually makes me more sympathetic to russell brand.  we've all go to start somewhere, perhaps in a few years brand's naive idealism and shonky understanding of things will turn into a proper political analysis.

the author of that piece was born a dickhead, raised a dickhead, lives as a Massive Clanging Bellend and on his deathbed his children will gather round and sneer at the passing of a proper fucking cock.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> tbh, that author actually makes me more sympathetic to russell brand.  we've all go to start somewhere, perhaps in a few years brand's naive idealism and shonky understanding of things will turn into a proper political analysis.
> 
> the author of that piece was born a dickhead, raised a dickhead, lives as a Massive Clanging Bellend and on his deathbed his children will gather round and sneer at the passing of a proper fucking cock.


How old do you think brand is? He's not a kiddy. He's almost at the end of his life.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 2, 2014)

the fool is older than me, so he should have picked up a bit of nous by now.  but even so, my mum didn't have a functioning class analysis until her 40s!  for very different reasons though, i should make clear.

i know what you mean though.  i just really hated the sneering arrogance of the writer of that piece.  because he was using russell brand to have a pop at all left-of-centre positions.


----------



## xenon (Nov 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How old do you think brand is? He's not a kiddy. He's almost at the end of his life.



39.  <feels the icy claw of death> 

Know what you mean though. His book just sounds risible. He'd not get away with writing that sorta tosh on here.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 2, 2014)

xenon said:


> He'd not get away with writing that sorta tosh on here.



heh, if those quotes are true, he'd get it from all angles.


----------



## Batboy (Nov 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> nonsense. Schools, churches, family or friends of family all get w/c kids into music and there are tons of w/c musicians. You can find them playing in pubs, fairs etc. What you are probably confusing is the visible outlet for artistry with the entirety of it. Would you claim there are no working class poets? No working class painters?
> 
> or is art in your head a middle class pursuit, too good for the likes of us?



Err who is 'us'? 'Majority' is what I said you are a painting a picture (a working class one of course!) that I have said *all *musicians

And that's not what I said. Of course there are w/c musicians and artists, my mother was such an artist from a working class background. What I am saying is that in my opinion (I am allowed one aren't I?) the majority of musicians would appear to come from middle class backgrounds. And in musicians that incorporates all musicians not just those that play indie rock and roll in pubs or busk on streets.


----------



## Batboy (Nov 3, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> He's not advocating rich people give their money to charity. Not that I've heard; perhaps his book says different. He's also not seeking to lead.



No he's just getting publicity that enhances his career as Geldof did.


----------



## Batboy (Nov 3, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> what is a revolution of thought?



Inside Brands head thoughts... Well I 'thought' about inciting revolution and how other people can do it, whilst I write the book on revolution of thought and thus make some more money..... . That's revolution of thought!  Simples!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2014)

Batboy said:


> Err who is 'us'? 'Majority' is what I said you are a painting a picture (a working class one of course!) that I have said *all *musicians
> 
> And that's not what I said. Of course there are w/c musicians and artists, my mother was such an artist from a working class background. What I am saying is that in my opinion (I am allowed one aren't I?) the majority of musicians would appear to come from middle class backgrounds. And in musicians that incorporates all musicians not just those that play indie rock and roll in pubs or busk on streets.




thats arrant nonsense though isn't it? Worse so because its sourced from the roots before its packaged for sale.


----------



## Batboy (Nov 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> thats arrant nonsense though isn't it? Worse so because its sourced from the roots before its packaged for sale.



What are you going on about?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 3, 2014)

Batboy said:


> No he's just getting publicity that enhances his career as Geldof did.


That may well be true, but it's inevitable given the media machine that exists.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2014)

xenon said:


> 39.  <feels the icy claw of death>
> 
> Know what you mean though. His book just sounds risible. He'd not get away with writing that sorta tosh on here.



Do you know, reading that piece, those misquotes and misunderstandings really do read like Hari's. I went through as many of his pieces on intellectual subjects and writers during hari/leroy jones-gate and they struck me as exactly the same sort of rushed gropings as in Brand's book - chararcterised by the need to be seen to mention these people, to be up with the intellectual curve rather than doing serious methodical study of them and then successfully integrating the useful bits into your own thoughts. Note russel, before you threaten someone else with legal action over ther authorship of your book, i'm not saying he wrote it, i'm not saying he's your little socky-wock, i'm saying it reads like you did the above verbally to Hari and he turned it into his usual mush for you.



Batboy said:


> No he's just getting publicity that enhances his career as Geldof did.



Cynicism is a useful tool born of costly experience. The above isn't useful cynicism though - it's the simple attribution of base motives to the actions of someone you don't like. I don't like him, i think he's a dilettante letch who isn't even suggesting he's going to follow through the logic of what he says in a credible manner - but he's genuine and sincere in his mistakes and there's plenty space for him to actually get them sorted if he grasps the easy way of living his life without double-standards and hypocrisies.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 3, 2014)

Totally agree all the points Moynihan raises are clearly Hari at work(except the 911 stuff)

I also think Brand like Owen Jones and Ellie Mae whatserface means well even if I disagree with a lot of what he says
I think the biggest problem with brand is his dalliances with truthers and other consipraloons


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 3, 2014)

andysays said:


> This shit is getting complicated. Maybe we need a new thread titled
> 
> 
> > Commentariat vs other commentariat: who's sueing who


*reserves place on thread*
(assuming there's also space in there for sometimes-commentariat threatening to sue non-commentariat)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

Brand got it in the neck yesterday from Jeremy Duns who dug out all tweets from him supporting Icke, 911 madness, anti-anti-semitism (rothschild stuff) etc. Looks like stuff that was brought out on here by a couple of posters back in june 2013.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Brand got it in the neck yesterday from Jeremy Duns who dug out all tweets from him supporting Icke, 911 madness, anti-anti-semitism (rothschild stuff) etc. Looks like stuff that was brought out on here by a couple of posters back in june 2013.



Ah yes. In an ideal world someone with a worldview that isn't made of magic cheese would use the attention that Brand is getting to launch a more worthwhile project, but I don't see that happening.

Meanwhile...



> *Jeremy Duns* @jeremyduns · 14h14 hours ago
> Russell Brand's Magical Loquacious Shoddily Researched Sexy And Ooh Missus A Bit Blokily Sexist Conspiracy Theory Open Mind Tour


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Brand got it in the neck yesterday from Jeremy Duns who dug out all tweets from him supporting Icke, 911 madness, anti-anti-semitism (rothschild stuff) etc. Looks like stuff that was brought out on here by a couple of posters back in june 2013.



good.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

From the mag that millionaire Brand guest edited for its billionaire editor:

Stuff your revolution if it doesn’t include treating women as people



> Russell Brand, clown that he is, is taken seriously by an awful lot of young men who see any criticism of the cartoon messiah’s misogyny as a derail from “the real issues” (whatever they are). The fans claim they love Brand despite the fact that he talks about women as poisoned birds of paradise, sucubus-like vultures or material accoutrements of wealth (“Are you reading this on a yacht, through your Ray-Bans, with, I dunno, a pair of glistening Russian sisters,” Brand asks his implicitly male reader at the start of his atrocious Revolution). I think the fans are dishonest: the sexism is part of the sell. If you know what power feels like, even if you have ever so little of it, how many people could commit to a new order with none at all?


----------



## rekil (Nov 4, 2014)

This never happened.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

Why are they short and why is peter on the right? I want to vomit.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2014)

Jesus


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2014)

no, just a naughty boy etc


----------



## rekil (Nov 4, 2014)

Is Sarah Ditum Judas? But a Judas who just nipped to the lav.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2014)

And why is there a muslim sitting in?


----------



## JimW (Nov 4, 2014)

That would be an ecumenical matter.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 4, 2014)

i think i was sitting opposite own jones on the northern line this morning.  i'm not very good with faces though, so i refrained from punching his, just in case it wasn't him.  later on it occured to me that i should have done it anyway, because the person in question probably could have done with a smack.


----------



## savoloysam (Nov 4, 2014)

I watched his recent appearance on Jonathan Ross yesterday.

Fooking ell who looks like he's got his back to the wall and is trying to dig his way out already. This while having the audience scream as though he really is the messiah and having one of his best mates "interview" him.

Fuck knows what drugs he was on and how much he took but i reckon they fucked him up real chronic.

I reckon there is a serious case of narcissism mixed with paranoia going on there.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2014)

PARKLIFE!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ourite-way-to-mock-russell-brand-9838182.html


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 4, 2014)

it does look a bit like he's back on the drugs.  the missus showed me the trailer for revolution the movie and my cokedar was screaming.  i'm not really an expert in anything but spotting people on drugs is one skill i have learned.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 4, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i think i was sitting opposite own jones on the northern line this morning.  i'm not very good with faces though, so i refrained from punching his, just in case it wasn't him.  later on it occured to me that i should have done it anyway, because the person in question probably could have done with a smack.



Why would you punch Jonesy?


----------



## poului (Nov 5, 2014)

Mark Steel lashes out at his critics.

"This week, by law, I have to deride Russell Brand as a self-obsessed, annoying idiot. No article or comment on Twitter can legally be written now unless it does this, so by the weekend the Sunday magazine recipes will go, “Goose and marmalade paella, serves six – unless one of the six is Russell Brand in which case he can make his own dinner as he’s such a rebel I suppose he doesn’t agree with ovens.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...his-critics-have-to-say-about-it-9829224.html

We're obviously just part of the problem.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2014)

That just reminds me how much more I enjoy reading Steel than Brand


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 5, 2014)

oh dear - Comrade Brand seems to be accelerating along the road to Crash and Burn. 

I think hes a good jester - ive quite enjoyed his pisstaking of fox news and suchlike - and his booky wooky biography def has its moments -  but political theorist/ revolutionary messiah might just be a little bit outside his skill set. And he needs to have a serious word with himself wrt sexism and suchlike.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> And he needs to have a serious word with himself wrt sexism and suchlike.



Is there any evidence of his sexism?

That "glistening Russian sisters" quote doesn't cut it, because he is taking the piss out of the Ray-ban wearing, yacht-riding addressee.

Is there anything else?  Hope not--I must say I liked his book a lot.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Is there any evidence of his sexism?
> 
> That "glistening Russian sisters" quote doesn't cut it, because he is taking the piss out of the Ray-ban wearing, yacht-riding addressee.
> 
> Is there anything else?  Hope not--I must say I liked his book a lot.


I thought that it was common knowledge that he ceased being sexist on 16-01-14. He tweeted to tell us.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I thought that it was common knowledge that he ceased being sexist on 16-01-14. He tweeted to tell us.



Seriously though, was he _ever_ sexist?

It's a genuine question.  I know nothing of Brand bar his book, which I found excellent and entirely non-sexist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Seriously though, was he _ever_ sexist?
> 
> It's a genuine question.  I know nothing of Brand bar his book, which I found excellent and entirely non-sexist.




which book?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Seriously though, was he _ever_ sexist?
> 
> It's a genuine question.  I know nothing of Brand bar his book, which I found excellent and entirely non-sexist.


Seriously. In his own words "Finally, through the love of good woman, teenage, sexist me was slain."
Make what you will of it.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> which book?



_Revolution.  _What else has he written?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> _Revolution.  _What else has he written?




his autobio 'My Booky Wook' which I have read- not got round to Rev yet. Few years since I read the bio but I recall some raised eyebrow moments.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seriously. In his own words "Finally, through the love of good woman, teenage, sexist me was slain."



I'd say the same thing. 

So has anyone got evidence of Brand being a sexist?  Or is it just what everyone says about people they don't like these days?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> his autobio 'My Booky Wooky'



Not the most promising title I've ever seen...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2014)

it was a christmas smash so shortly afterwards available in all good charity shops


----------



## Greebo (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> _Revolution.  _What else has he written?


Are you suggesting that "My booky wook" and "Booky wook 2" were ghostwritten?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

Greebo said:


> "Booky wook 2"



You have _got _to be kidding.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I'd say the same thing.
> 
> So has anyone got evidence of Brand being a sexist?  Or is it just what everyone says about people they don't like these days?


OK, you say you were sexist; fair enough; no evidence needed. Brand says he was sexist...why don't you believe him?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> OK, you say you were sexist; fair enough; no evidence needed. Brand says he was sexist...why don't you believe him?



Every man is sexist until they learn not to be.

The fact that Brand says he's learned not to be sexist strikes me as convincing _prima facie _evidence that he is not sexist.

Unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You have _got _to be kidding.


If you have tears, prepare to shed them now at life's unfairness


Spoiler


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Every man is sexist until they learn not to be.
> 
> The fact that Brand says he's learned not to be sexist strikes me as convincing _prima facie _evidence that he is not sexist.
> 
> Unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary?



Yeah, but that's not what you asked, is it?



phildwyer said:


> Seriously though, was he _ever_ sexist?



Answer you were given = yes.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

Greebo said:


> If you have tears, prepare to shed them now at life's unfairness



Actually he goes up further in my estimation.

He could have just written "Booky Wook 3," as I'm sure his agents and advisors all urged him to.  Instead he puts together a really good piece of work.  Not epoch-making or anything, but perfectly sound, decent stuff that seems likely to influence his audience in a positive manner.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Answer you were given = yes.



Dude, you really need to provide some evidence if you hope to convince people.

The statement you quoted isn't evidence, because it applies to every man.

Do you have any real evidence or not?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Dude, you really need to provide some evidence if you hope to convince people.



I don't, but I did. _*Dude*_.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 5, 2014)

http://www.thegrindstone.com/2012/0...ardrobe-girl-but-dont-worry-it-was-funny-274/


----------



## 8115 (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Dude, you really need to provide some evidence if you hope to convince people.
> 
> The statement you quoted isn't evidence, because it applies to every man.
> 
> Do you have any real evidence or not?


Every man?

I don't know the details but Brand was worse than most I think. I think it was also in the context of drug and possibly sex addiction. I am not sure though.

Google "is russell brand a sexist", there's a lot of stuff.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I don't, but I did. _*Dude*_.



No you didn't.

I think you've just got into the habit of calling everyone you don't like "sexist."


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No you didn't.
> 
> I think you've just got into the habit of calling everyone you don't like "sexist."


No doubt you'll have some evidence of that...*dude.*


----------



## 8115 (Nov 5, 2014)

There was that thing about that guy's grandaughter, distinct air of misogyny there at the risk of digging up buried stuff.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

8115 said:


> Google "is russell brand a sexist", there's a lot of stuff.



OK I just skimmed the top few links.

Most of them say he's sexist because he is (or used to be) promiscuous.

That's just silly.  And when it comes from heterosexual men, it's motivated by jealousy.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No doubt you'll have some evidence of that...*dude.*



No problem dude.



brogdale said:


> Ironically, had Barton used that analogy, (rather the offensive sexist one that he did)



Now, once again, _do you have any evidence that Russell Brand is a sexist?
_
Like getting blood from a stone it is.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No problem dude.
> 
> Now, once again, _do you have any evidence that Russell Brand is a sexist?
> _
> Like getting blood from a stone it is.


Sachsgate.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 5, 2014)

When i listened to him being interviewed by Evan he was stating that one of his main aims was to become a voice for oppressed people who had few champions.

He's right, our side of the free market fuckwittery v socialism/anarchism/communism battle does not have many high profile articulators.  Sadly, gone are the days when we could watch/listen to the news and hear a Scargill or a Benn or a Foot arguing for and urging proper change.

Worse still is the absence of a sustaining labour movement.  Hopefully that will be back, when people finally awaken from the long slumber..

Till then, Russell has my respect, and occasional attention.  We've to take whats available, warts and all.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No problem dude.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, once again, _do you have any evidence that Russell Brand is a sexist?_



I like Barton, so no, that's not evidence of what you suggested. (and he did apologise for being sexist).
Have another go, eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2014)

8115 said:


> Sachsgate.




ringing up someones elderly grandad while coked up to boast about having slept with his grandaughter, live on national radio. Not his finest hour.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> ringing up someones elderly grandad while coked up to boast about having slept with his grandaughter, live on national radio. Not his finest hour.



True.  But if that's the most sexist thing he's ever done he's a lot better than most.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I like Barton, so no, that's not evidence of what you suggested. (and he did apologise for being sexist).
> Have another go, eh?



No problem dude:



brogdale said:


> More dated sexism...*"collar and cuffs"*



Look, this is getting ridiculous.  You're obviously one of those people who throw the word "sexism" around wildly, applying it to just about anything you happen to find objectionable.  I think that robs the term of its import and significance.

Now, for the last time.  DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT R. BRAND IS A SEXIST?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> True.  But if that's the most sexist thing he's ever done he's a lot better than most.


_If..._


----------



## 8115 (Nov 5, 2014)

redcogs said:


> When i listened to him being interviewed by Evan he was stating that one of his main aims was to become a voice for oppressed people who had few champions.
> 
> He's right, our side of the free market fuckwittery v socialism/anarchism/communism battle does not have many high profile articulators.  Sadly, gone are the days when we could watch/listen to the news and hear a Scargill or a Benn or a Foot arguing for and urging proper change.
> 
> ...


I happen to agree with quite a few of Prince Charles' view. He doesn't have my respect and occasional attention though.

I don't hate Russell Brand or anything. In fact I kind of like him. But I think some of his strengths, enthusiasm, idealism and a lot of charisma are a bit if a dangerous cocktail.


----------



## 8115 (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> True.  But if that's the most sexist thing he's ever done he's a lot better than most.


Really? Sexually disparaging someone on national radio?


----------



## 8115 (Nov 5, 2014)

dp.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Look, this is getting ridiculous.  You're obviously one of those people who throw the word "sexism" around wildly, applying it to just about anything you happen to find objectionable.  I think that robs the term of its import and significance.



A great part of its import and significance stems from the large number of phenomenon that quite fairly fall under its name.

Some of Brands most obvious failings in the past may well fall under a range of labels that go beyond what you see the core of sexism to be. Thats your problem, and failure of others to adhere to these restrictions does not mean other people are 'watering down' the term sexism in a manner that harms the cause, no matter how loud or how long you bleat on about it.

Whatever labels people find most appropriate, clearly Brand has done things in the past that he shows at least some signs of being ashamed about these days. I'm not sure if he will manage to convince all of his critics that he's really got a clue on some of these fronts now, perhaps because the way he speaks and writes tends to add a sort of fickle, glossy objectivisation to bloody everything. So even when he's trying to declare that he now stands against the sexual objectification of women, the declaration itself seems to end up encapsulated in a shiny bauble.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No problem dude:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, this is getting ridiculous.  You're obviously one of those people who throw the word "sexism" around wildly, applying it to just about anything you happen to find objectionable.  I think that robs the term of its import and significance.





phildwyer said:


> I think you've just got into the habit of calling everyone you don't like "sexist."


So, to re-cap, referring to an archaic term intimating some discrepancy between the colour of a woman's head and pubic hair as sexist, somehow proves your assertion that I've "..._got into the habit of calling "..everyone you_ _ don't like...'sexist'".
_
You're hoping to convince people of something?
Lol


----------



## redcogs (Nov 5, 2014)

8115 said:


> I happen to agree with quite a few of Prince Charles' view. He doesn't have my respect and occasional attention though.
> 
> I don't hate Russell Brand or anything. In fact I kind of like him. But I think some of his strengths, enthusiasm, idealism and a lot of charisma are a bit if a dangerous cocktail.



Brand is just another celeb, but at least he isn't prominent merely because he got born into the Saxe Coburg Gotha Windsor tribe of talentless and lisping aristo's.

Brand has often got it wrong, and no doubt will again.  But i believe he is sincere, and that he has changed - for the better.  The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step?


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 5, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> True.  But if that's the most sexist thing he's ever done he's a lot better than most.


 
How about this? http://www.thegrindstone.com/2012/0...ardrobe-girl-but-dont-worry-it-was-funny-274/


----------



## xenon (Nov 5, 2014)

The cheaky scamp. Its just his idiom.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2014)

I read something written by him maybe nearly a year back where he said he feared he 'had a bit of a case of the old sexism' and was taking a look at his behaviour.  Has he been backsliding a bit?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 5, 2014)

Russell Brand said:
			
		

> One thing I've learned and was surprised by is that I may suffer from the ol' sexism. I can only assume I have an unaddressed cultural hangover, like my adorable Nan who had a heart that shone like a pearl but was, let's face it, a bit racist. I don't want to be a sexist so I'm trying my best to check meself before I wreck meself. The problem may resolve itself as I'm in a loving relationship with a benevolent dictator and have entirely relinquished personal autonomy.



From here.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2014)

8ball said:


> From here.


Hmmm Brand, once more,admits his own sexism...but where's the "EVIDENCE"?


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Nov 5, 2014)

Russell Brand got political... a lot of people are sceptical of his motives and his political knowledge.  We don't all need to be super intelligent or morally angelic to make a difference to the world around us.  If Russell wants to shine his light on something, he has just as much right to do so as anyone.

Sometimes online conversations are too much like a bunch of concert pianists criticising  a bloke who's just learned a few chords on a pub piano.  He might not understand exactly what he's doing, but it's still music and although it may be clumsy or unoriginal, he's the guy who has made the effort to create something.

Good luck to him, and I'd much rather vote for Russell Brand than Milly Band.


----------



## SovietArmy (Nov 5, 2014)

Who is Milly Band?


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Nov 5, 2014)

SovietArmy said:


> Who is Milly Band?


----------



## SovietArmy (Nov 5, 2014)

Oh sorry I did not click on that.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Nov 5, 2014)

Russell's getting a lot of stick on Twitter...




http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-11-05/why-are-people-tweeting-parklife-at-russell-brand


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2014)

elbows said:


> A great part of its import and significance stems from the large number of phenomenon that quite fairly fall under its name.
> 
> Some of Brands most obvious failings in the past may well fall under a range of labels that go beyond what you see the core of sexism to be. Thats your problem, and failure of others to adhere to these restrictions does not mean other people are 'watering down' the term sexism in a manner that harms the cause, no matter how loud or how long you bleat on about it.
> 
> Whatever labels people find most appropriate, clearly Brand has done things in the past that he shows at least some signs of being ashamed about these days. I'm not sure if he will manage to convince all of his critics that he's really got a clue on some of these fronts now, perhaps because the way he speaks and writes tends to add a sort of fickle, glossy objectivisation to bloody everything. So even when he's trying to declare that he now stands against the sexual objectification of women, the declaration itself seems to end up encapsulated in a shiny bauble.



So no evidence of his sexism then?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Hmmm Brand, once more,admits his own sexism...but where's the "EVIDENCE"?



That hardly reads like the statement of a sexist to me.  

So no evidence then.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That hardly reads like the statement of a sexist to me.
> 
> So no evidence then.


If you don't believe him, then fair enough...but perhaps you'd like offer an explanation of Brand's desire to fabricate this aspect of his character?

And...as you're still fixating on "EVIDENCE"D)...are you actually going to offer anything that supports your contention that





phildwyer said:


> *I think you've just got into the habit of calling everyone you don't like "sexist."*


?


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Nov 6, 2014)




----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2014)

thats a very catholic jesus image there


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

"_She's a shaft grasper_"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> So, to re-cap, referring to an archaic term intimating some discrepancy between the colour of a woman's head and pubic hair as sexist, somehow proves your assertion that I've "..._got into the habit of calling "..everyone you_ _ don't like...'sexist'".
> _
> You're hoping to convince people of something?
> Lol



Surely you're not implying that phil's defence of brand is in reality a defence of himself?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely you're not implying that phil's defence of brand is in reality a defence of himself?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


>


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely you're not implying that phil's defence of brand is in reality a defence of himself?



What character trait could the two possibly share? 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What character trait could the two possibly share?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Isn't it likely that there would be _some common traits*_ between any two individuals?

* some of those 4 word combinations appear better than others! Line 14's a bit of a shocker.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2014)

You're right about line 14!

The shared trait I had in mind isn't in that list.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You're right about line 14!
> 
> The shared trait I had in mind isn't in that list.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Is it celebrity? A set of social conditions that produce a meritocratic ego-based  self worth that means that nothing is real in your world anymore?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

_I've done books you know_


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _I've done books you know_



Literally, beer on keyboard.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Literally, beer on keyboard.


Phil is great. He is trapped. He trapped himself. He's trapped because he doesn't think an accretion of privilege (specialist,economic, cultural, path) has changed him. It has. All he talks about now, no matter what it is is about *phil*. That's why i put him on ignore, crude i may be, but there are other worlds than phil.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> Russell's getting a lot of stick on Twitter...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ignore Russell Brand for a minute (I don't like him anyway), but does anyone else find this trend stupid? I just do not get it, why is it funny? Is it funny because the Blur singer has a regional accent, a vocabulary and the ability to use more than one sentence at a time and so is just like Russell Brand? The message seems to be that people with those characteristics need to stick to entertainment while things like politics are left to our betters preferably those of our betters who stick either to what the establishment consider common sense or a slight variation thereof.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Ignore Russell Brand for a minute (I don't like him anyway), but does anyone else find this trend stupid? I just do not get it, why is it funny? Is it funny because the Blur singer has a regional accent, a vocabulary and the ability to use more than one sentence at a time and so is just like Russell Brand? The message seems to be that people with those characteristics need to stick to entertainment while things like politics are left to our betters preferably those of our betters who stick either to what the establishment consider common sense or a slight variation thereof.



yes


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Ignore Russell Brand for a minute (I don't like him anyway), but does anyone else find this trend stupid? I just do not get it, why is it funny? Is it funny because the Blur singer has a regional accent, a vocabulary and the ability to use more than one sentence at a time and so is just like Russell Brand? The message seems to be that people with those characteristics need to stick to entertainment while things like politics are left to our betters preferably those of our betters who stick either to what the establishment consider common sense or a slight variation thereof.


Though, like most 'comedic' memes, it's rapidly becoming unfunny itself, I believe the original tweet was a satirical observation on the similarity between Brand's cadence of affected arcane vocabulary and that delivered by Phil Daniels in the referenced song. The meme would only have a regionalist meaning to those that believe verbosity is a geographically determined trait.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Ignore Russell Brand for a minute (I don't like him anyway), but does anyone else find this trend stupid? I just do not get it, why is it funny? Is it funny because the Blur singer has a regional accent, a vocabulary and the ability to use more than one sentence at a time and so is just like Russell Brand? The message seems to be that people with those characteristics need to stick to entertainment while things like politics are left to our betters preferably those of our betters who stick either to what the establishment consider common sense or a slight variation thereof.



thats not albarn, its him out of Quadrophenia
which also stars a ray winstone, the tax dodger, as a rocker.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because Cheesy believes (as many do) that revolutions need figureheads. The problem with that is it generally implies some kind of top-down "revolutionary" organisation behind the figurehead - a vanguard, if you will  - and the imposition of an ideology on the class. Russell calls himself an anarchist, but while he may be anar*chic*, the politics he's so far enunciated are inchoate. They're neither fish nor fowl.


There are loads of gaps in his political knowledge (I'm not saying mine is perfect) and I think he would do well to read up on some theory. I hear he's referenced Guy Debord in his book but the question is: does he understand Society of the Spectacle? I often find that people just take one or two bits from it and leave the rest and even then, they're misrepresenting it.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> "_She's a shaft grasper_"




Pish.   He's not being sexist there, he's being funny and charming.  And the women on that show are totally in love with him too.

Anti-sexist men can't tell the difference between funny/charming and sexist.  That's their problem.

So does _anyone _have any evidence of Brand's alleged sexism?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Pish.   He's not being sexist there, he's being funny and charming.  And the women on that show are totally in love with him too.
> 
> Anti-sexist men can't tell the difference between funny/charming and sexist.  That's their problem.


Are you claiming that you can tell the difference between funny/charming and sexist?

You appear to have missed this Russell Brand on Revolution


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Are you claiming that you can tell the difference between funny/charming and sexist?
> 
> You appear to have missed this Russell Brand on Revolution



Is phil "funny/charming"? I think we should be told!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 9, 2014)

here's Russell Brand with celebrity misogynist du jour, Julien Blanc. 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1w7sfaCcAIdDqT.png:large


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 9, 2014)

Russell looking a bit refreshed there.  Hopefully not falling off the wagon Russell


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 9, 2014)

oh yeah there was a recent article about him on the Jezebel blog. Apparently his pick up techniques include choking strangers and forcing there heads towards his groin.


http://jezebel.com/julien-blanc-fans-ladies-are-just-mad-because-pickup-a-1655568103


> Here at the headquarters of the Global Feminist Conspiracy, we have a lot on our plates: misandry, oppressing men, hating men, attacking men, growing out our leg hair to ever more luxurious lengths, and, of course, tending to our hundreds of cats. But in the past several weeks, all of our efforts have been focused on one man: Julien Blanc, pickup artist and the single greatest threat to our very existence*.
> 
> Blanc lives in Los Angeles, where he's a dating coach with a company called Real Social Dynamics. He's successfully taught hundreds of men how to successfully woo hot bitches with tasteful, subtle tactics like choking them and shoving their heads towards his penis, as this video from one of his sojourns to Japan shows:


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 9, 2014)

on this page, we learn that julien's colleague owen is a rapist, and is so pleased with himself that he tells the story as a joke.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/1...ault-women-now-hes-getting-a-lesson-in-karma/


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 9, 2014)

i'm sad that we live in an age where we can use the words pick up technique and sexual assault to mean the same thing.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Nov 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> There are loads of gaps in his political knowledge (I'm not saying mine is perfect) and I think he would do well to read up on some theory. I hear he's referenced Guy Debord in his book but the question is: does he understand Society of the Spectacle? I often find that people just take one or two bits from it and leave the rest and even then, they're misrepresenting it.



If he read up on some theory his entire edifice would collapse. It's not like the 60s counter-cultural milieu was any less authoritarian than your bog standard Marxist-Leninist currents. The trick is to recognise authority without flinching away from it. But this is a guy who sees Dawkins as a threat. So you know 

If the future of revolutionary politics is going to be about reclaiming some sort of lost spiritual totality a la green movement then I'd rather be confined to the gulag...  this is worse than the commodification of revolutionary politics by those bloody hippies, I think...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 9, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> here's Russell Brand with celebrity misogynist du jour, Julien Blanc.
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1w7sfaCcAIdDqT.png:large


While I dont want to defend Brand particularly I wonder what the context is? random people run up to him all the time to pose for pics


----------



## rorymac (Nov 9, 2014)

el-ahrairah .. your drug radar is letting you down ok .. RB has been clean for 10 years and still is tbf


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 9, 2014)

rorymac said:


> el-ahrairah .. your drug radar is letting you down ok .. RB has been clean for 10 years and still is tbf



i hope so.  there's a lot of people, myself included, who take strength and comfort from the successful continuing sobriety of other ex-addicts and to see a high profile one fall, even a dickhead like brand, can be personally distressing.


----------



## rorymac (Nov 9, 2014)

Well quit saying it on here then .. you expect it from Boris (Russell is a lovely fellow even if he did spend a lot of time in the gents !!) Johnson.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 9, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> While I dont want to defend Brand particularly I wonder what the context is? random people run up to him all the time to pose for pics



with any luck he hasn't a fucking clue who that cretin is.  still, it's probably the same with the pic of owen jones and weev, but we still use it to mock.  brand is this lad's hero.  what a legacy.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 9, 2014)

rorymac said:


> Well quit saying it on here then .. you expect it from Boris (Russell is a lovely fellow even if he did spend a lot of time in the gents !!) Johnson.



if you like :d


----------



## rorymac (Nov 9, 2014)

Hurray 

Now then his book .. afaict only one of us has read it lol


----------



## rorymac (Nov 9, 2014)

I'm surprised tbh el-ahrairah .. have you watched any of his trews channel ?
He answers every misgiving that folks are questioning him about in that plus any number of interviews .. I don't get why folks are so mad at him .. even if you don't like him he's on the side of any group that is proactive.

I suppose the proof will be in the pudding as phildwyer (who has!! read his book heh) said but in the mean time he surely can't be doing harm supporting unions and homeless folks, drug addicts and alcoholics and taking on huge media and business corporations. He can have no clue that he will have anything resembling a career in the future by doing this.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

I'm not a fan of Brand, and please feel free to dismiss Russell Brand the entity, but his ideology shouldn't be dismissed, simply because you don't like or agree with the methodology he's using to put his point across.

Russel Brand is trying hard to address human rights issues. Just because he may not be as articulate as he could be, or because he seems to have spent more time reading a thesaurus than was necessary, doesn't make his POV any less valid.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

I'm watching his Newsnight interview as I type, and the fact that he has to attempt to defend his position on planned obsolescence is laughable! Approximately 95% of Ford's revenue is based on planned obsolescence. Ford employ engineers who deliberately build in flaws to ensure their replaceable parts last 3 years (just) (see 'warranty period')

e2a.. Trying to find the light bulb thing...

here... 

Edit...A quote from the video... " Anyone who thinks that infinite growth is consistent with a finite planet is either crazy or an economist"... never a truer word spoken!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

Just got to the part about 9:11, and I see some people are dismissing Brand's ideologies because they think he might believe that 9:11 was instigated by the American powers... I don't think the twin towers were brought down by the yanks... I KNOW they were brought down by them, and I couldn't give a flying fuck who disagrees with me, because I've worked on demolitions and seen the mathematics and physics of controlled demolitions, and I know that a plane crashing into the towers couldn't ever create a situation where structural metals become molten, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fookin' div'!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

Just finished watching the interview... anyone who doesn't support his views is a cunt!


----------



## rorymac (Nov 10, 2014)

0/10


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

rorymac said:


> 0/10


Ace reply... -10/10

e2a...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> anyone who doesn't support his views is a cunt!



...said the "Devil's advocate".


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...said the "Devil's advocate".


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2014)

My god


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Just got to the part about 9:11, and I see some people are dismissing Brand's ideologies because they think he might believe that 9:11 was instigated by the American powers... I don't think the twin towers were brought down by the yanks... I KNOW they were brought down by them, and I couldn't give a flying fuck who disagrees with me, because I've worked on demolitions and seen the mathematics and physics of controlled demolitions, and I know that a plane crashing into the towers couldn't ever create a situation where structural metals become molten, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fookin' div'!


You idiot (why do they always give themselves spurious doctorates?)


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You idiot (why do they always give themselves spurious doctorates?)


All you have to do is prove me wrong... 

E2A... it might be something to do with a doctorate


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Just got to the part about 9:11, and I see some people are dismissing Brand's ideologies because they think he might believe that 9:11 was instigated by the American powers... I don't think the twin towers were brought down by the yanks... I KNOW they were brought down by them, and I couldn't give a flying fuck who disagrees with me, because I've worked on demolitions and seen the mathematics and physics of controlled demolitions, and I know that a plane crashing into the towers couldn't ever create a situation where structural metals become molten, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fookin' div'!


out of curiosity where did the molten metal found under ground zero come from then? seems to me the planes must have caused _that_...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 10, 2014)

jesus fucking christ.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 10, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You idiot (why do they always give themselves spurious doctorates?)



that's a very good question.  someone should do a study.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity where did the molten metal found under ground zero come from then? seems to me the planes must have caused _that_...


it's mentioned here http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm Dr_Herbz


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> jesus fucking christ.


who's that to?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> who's that to?



the imaginary doctor


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> the imaginary doctor


I'm real...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 10, 2014)

the NHS is in even more trouble than i thought


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> the NHS is in even more trouble than i thought


Why do you assume I'm anything to do with the health service... or the UK, for that matter?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Why do you assume I'm anything to do with the health service... or the UK, for that matter?


i thought you'd be a patient somewhere.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought you'd be a patient somewhere.


Chortle


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2014)

none of which changes the apparent fact that molten steel was found at ground zero. as far as i can see it must have been caused by the impact of the planes or the subsequent inferno, caused of course by the planes.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 10, 2014)

it was actually shipped in by carrier pigeon over the previous three months.  OBVISOULY


----------



## rorymac (Nov 10, 2014)

I'm not a fan of lightbulbs in all honesty .. fuck with my ambiánce and tranquillity at the best of times but especially the 110 long life ones that keep going out when I'm down deep dark scary lightwells all on my own .. 'you can't read a book under those circumstances' .. tony cascarino chapter 3 it's only a game !!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 10, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> that's a very good question.  someone should do a study.


could make it the subject of a phd - Pickman's model ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> could make it the subject of a phd - Pickman's model ?


already taken


----------



## Mungy (Nov 10, 2014)

getting the thread back on track...


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Why do you assume I'm anything to do with the health service... or the UK, for that matter?








Good to see another graduate of the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College on the thread.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2014)

great, 9/11 conspiracies. You know where this rabbit hole goes right?


----------



## poului (Nov 10, 2014)

Mungy said:


> getting the thread back on track...




Fair play to him on that, to be honest. The thing that grated me most about him for quite while was his apparent incapability of having a little dig at himself every now and then.


----------



## cantsin (Nov 10, 2014)

poului said:


> Fair play to him on that, to be honest. The thing that grated me most about him for quite while was his apparent incapability of having a little dig at himself every now and then.



accuse RB of many things, but he's always seemed happy to take the piss out of himself


----------



## xenon (Nov 10, 2014)

Saw this in email this morning. Just posting here for info / wider dispursel. Not as critisizm. (Might have been done TBF.)


----------



## xenon (Nov 10, 2014)

Although I've not watched that vid yet. Just saw the petition email.


----------



## Mungy (Nov 10, 2014)

I am enjoying reading his book, so far. Part of his message is that he started with nothing, got the fame and the hollywood lifestyle but it still didn't make him happy, that the system we live in doesn't work for the majority of us. He acknowledges that he is lucky, and is using his sleb status, such as it is, to get the message out. He doesn't say he has solutions, he doesn't want to be the leader. It is up to us to work together to find our own solutions. The people he has worked with to write his book are better qualified to offer some solutions to the problems we face.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 10, 2014)




----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2014)

Mungy said:


> The people he has worked with to write his book are better qualified to offer some solutions to the problems we face.


what, the plagiarist nonce-porn writer or the neo-fascist?


----------



## cantsin (Nov 10, 2014)

killer b said:


> what, the plagiarist nonce-porn writer or the neo-fascist?



who's the "the plagiarist nonce-porn writer " ? ( havent seen the book yet)


----------



## Mungy (Nov 10, 2014)

killer b said:


> what, the plagiarist nonce-porn writer or the neo-fascist?


don't know who either of them are. are they good solutions they have offered to the problem they are addressing?


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2014)

cantsin said:


> who's the "the plagiarist nonce-porn writer " ? ( havent seen the book yet)


Johann Hari I presume. He wrote some dodgy incest slash fiction using all that time he saved by cutting and pasting his "journalism", when he wasn't updating his own wiki page


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2014)

JimW said:


> Johann Hari I presume. He wrote some dodgy incest slash fiction using all that time he saved by cutting and pasting his "journalism", when he wasn't updating his own wiki page



You need to keep on top of Wikipedia - I've given up trying to clarify that I am not a Danish pop trio.


----------



## JimW (Nov 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> You need to keep on top of Wikipedia - I've given up trying to clarify that I am not a Danish pop trio.


Don't try to deny it, I've heard your scando-pop close harmonising.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 10, 2014)

JimW said:


> Don't try to deny it, I've heard your scando-pop close harmonising.



Have you got cameras in my shower?? 

edit: or microphones, obv


----------



## 8115 (Nov 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Have you got cameras in my shower??
> 
> edit: or microphones, obv


Both, surely.


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2014)

xenon said:


> Saw this in email this morning. Just posting here for info / wider dispursel. Not as critisizm. (Might have been done TBF.)





he is doing something there, which the BBC, etc should be doing, fair play to him.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

He's our hero. We need heroes.


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2014)

He is not our saviour, far from it, but here is on a cold winters day outside a Tory M.P's office , he could be in LA making money, making out, etc.

btw, genuine question, did the radical chic of the sixties, Vanessa, etc protest on basic issues, not just, 'The War', etc, Brand is.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

Yes they did. 5 am outside various gates._ Isn't it simply su-perb how they act._


----------



## cantsin (Nov 11, 2014)

JimW said:


> Johann Hari I presume. He wrote some dodgy incest slash fiction using all that time he saved by cutting and pasting his "journalism", when he wasn't updating his own wiki page



hahaha...he's a frickin card that one for sure.


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2014)

Brand is off to Ireland soon to support the water charges campaign, maybe Nigel will meet him.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

Ah, he's like the pope. What's happening on the end of his road?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

_Hello - i'm off to Ireland. You?_


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2014)

treelover said:


> he could be in LA making money, making out, etc.


Then his agent/publisher/management/Hari would be ringing the bejabers out of his phone demanding to know why he isn't out promoting his shitty stocking filler as per his contract terms.


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2014)

edited for accuracy,


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

treelover said:


> edited for accuracy,


Fantastic.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2014)

treelover said:


> Brand is off to Ireland soon to support the water charges campaign, maybe Nigel will meet him.



Good on him. He doesn't have to do any of this.


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2014)

Oh yes he does.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2014)

copliker said:


> Oh yes he does.


 Oh no he doesn't


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

This show has gone downhill very quickly.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This show has gone downhill very quickly.



It's beneath you!


----------



## maomao (Nov 13, 2014)




----------



## gosub (Nov 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> He is not our saviour, far from it, but here is on a cold winters day outside a Tory M.P's office , he could be in LA making money, making out, etc.
> 
> btw, genuine question, did the radical chic of the sixties, Vanessa, etc protest on basic issues, not just, 'The War', etc, Brand is.



if Brand's hollywood career wasn't over after Arthur, it was after he  bought into 9/11 conspiricies.


----------



## rekil (Nov 13, 2014)

Why? That guy who plays the Hulk is a 9/11 loon. He still does alright.


----------



## gosub (Nov 13, 2014)

tolerance level is lower for "guests"


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 13, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh no he doesn't



bit early for panto


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 14, 2014)

copliker said:


> Why? That guy who plays the Hulk is a 9/11 loon. He still does alright.


Which one?


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 14, 2014)




----------



## rekil (Nov 14, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which one?


Mark Ruffalo. He's also in Begin Again with Knightly, one of the worst fillums I've seen in a long time.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 14, 2014)

copliker said:


> Mark Ruffalo. He's also in Begin Again with Knightly, one of the worst fillums I've seen in a long time.


I liked him but changed my mind now


----------



## rekil (Nov 14, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I liked him but changed my mind now


Do not watch that fillum btw. Corden is in it as well.


----------



## inva (Nov 14, 2014)

copliker said:


> Why? That guy who plays the Hulk is a 9/11 loon. He still does alright.


and Marion Cotillard


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2014)

Gruffalo is good in Zodiac.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 15, 2014)

gosub said:


> if Brand's hollywood career wasn't over after Arthur, it was after he  bought into 9/11 conspiricies.


Where is your evidence that he believes those ideas?


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

russell brand is a zionist agent of that they is no doubt. He called out a hooker from london on a 55mile with his illuminati tart jemina khan and scarred the life out of her so she reported it to the police and brand probably paid his way out of it.


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

if you guys think 911 is a conspiricy theorie you better wake up


Awesome Wells said:


> Where is your evidence that he believes those ideas?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> russell brand is a zionist agent of that they is no doubt. He called out a hooker from london on a 55mph with his illuminati tart jemina khan and scarred the life out of her so she reported it to the police and brand probably paid his way out of it.


Why bother?


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> He called out a hooker from london on a 55mph with his illuminati tart jemina khan and scarred the life out of her


He did whatnow?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> He did whatnow?


It's just someone pretending to be a faschist loon.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> if you guys think 911 is a conspiricy theorie you better wake up


I don't understand why you have quoted me and then said this.


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

IT WAS REPORTED IN THE MAINSTREAM PRESS


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> IT WAS REPORTED IN THE MAINSTREAM PRESS



What was?


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's just someone pretending to be a faschist loon.


An incomprehensible faschist loon at that...


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> An incomprehensible faschist loon at that...



Aren't they all?


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

russel brand jemima khan called a hooker out to jeminas estate in thr home counties and while the hooker was there russel got out of hand in a way which scarred the hungarain call girl and she escaped and drove back to london. russel shit himself payed the girl 500 quid and then had to go to court about it obviosly rus knew the handskake and got away with it but not without causing considerable attention to himself and his exploits.
He also recently came on to a bird from the financial times who was interviewing him making her feel sick she even said in the paper just a few weeks ago.
 Most famously he bragged once about giving strangers blow jobs through holes in a public toilet door it goes without saying not the sort of bloke you leave alone with your kids or anyone elses.


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

Russel brand is an atempt by the goon squad to bring in another false leader like david icke alexjones and all but its not working.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> it goes without saying not the sort of bloke you leave alone with your kids or anyone elses.



Sounds a bit libellous to me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 15, 2014)

rorymac said:


> I'm not a fan of lightbulbs in all honesty .. fuck with my ambiánce and tranquillity at the best of times but especially the 110 long life ones that keep going out when I'm down deep dark scary lightwells all on my own .. 'you can't read a book under those circumstances' .. tony cascarino chapter 3 it's only a game !!



Here in BC, it's been legislated that we have to buy the long life lightbulbs. You can't get regular bulbs anymore. That might be ok if the long life bulbs actually were long life. I bought a lamp a couple of months ago. It needed three bulbs. Last week, one of them burned out.

So what's changed, is that bulbs used to cost about a dollar each. Now they cost ten dollars.


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

russell brand has been given so much media space its unreal and he still got eggs thrown at him in the march in london last week


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

russel brand paedophile elitist shitbag


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> russel brand paedophile elitist shitbag



Are you done yet?


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

its pretty important people realise who this brand is and not to let any false leaders get in the way of the inevitable


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> its pretty important people realise who this brand is and not to let any false leaders get in the way of the inevitable



Inevitable what? Your banning?


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

banned for what the truth


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

remember we see through you


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> banned for what the truth



For being an incomprehensible, spamming, loon.


----------



## weseethroughyou (Nov 15, 2014)

madian nazis meet in cenotaph tommorow


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 15, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Sounds a bit libellous to me.


Nowt wrong with a healthy bit of libel now and then 
No idea about the hungarian prostitute bit, but what's wrong with a bit of cottaging?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> banned for what the truth



Here's a conspiracy of my own; the quickest way to smear someone, shut them up and affect their credibility is to allege noncery.

It's a nasty business; so let me ask this - who are you in the employ of?


----------



## ibilly99 (Nov 15, 2014)

RB did blow a stranger in  a toilet back when he was an edgy narco operating out of the wilds of cable TV.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> RB did blow a stranger in  a toilet back when he was an edgy narco operating out of the wilds of cable TV.



Which shows this _real _russian nationalist homophobe has spent his life - his real life, not this joke one constructed for this site - watching youtube. What a _victory_.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> russel brand jemima khan called a hooker out to jeminas estate in thr home counties and while the hooker was there russel got out of hand in a way which scarred the hungarain call girl and she escaped and drove back to london. russel shit himself payed the girl 500 quid and then had to go to court about it obviosly rus knew the handskake and got away with it but not without causing considerable attention to himself and his exploits.
> He also recently came on to a bird from the financial times who was interviewing him making her feel sick she even said in the paper just a few weeks ago.
> Most famously he bragged once about giving strangers blow jobs through holes in a public toilet door it goes without saying not the sort of bloke you leave alone with your kids or anyone elses.


I'm not sure how giving blowjobs to adult strangers makes you unsafe to be around kids. What do you mean by that?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 15, 2014)

weseethroughyou said:


> russel brand paedophile elitist shitbag


"We didn't start the  fire..."


----------



## LiamO (Nov 15, 2014)

I dunno wtf point RB was attempting to prove on that video but I would have thought that most adults on here know the difference between a blow-job and a wank. Apparently not.

And even the wank was _implied _(and rather quick).


----------



## LiamO (Nov 16, 2014)

elbows said:


> There is some evidence by which we may judge this for ourselves. I think I watched this myself but too long ago to remember how good & accurate I thought it was.




That is excellent.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 16, 2014)

Lefties slagging lefties for not being lefties YAWWWWWWNNNNN. The Urban self regard show where everyone really posts about themselves and how great they are. Keyboard Wolfies.

Where is the thread about the politics of Jay-Z or Ant/Dec or Emmerdale/Corrie/Enders actors/actresses or (insert celebrity here)?

It all reminds me of Tim Henman. Okay he wasn't #1 tennis saviour who would deliver us, but he was fuck load better than the rest of the Brits at the time. But people slagged him off because he wasn't Federer/Sampras when they should have been slagging off all the other tits.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 16, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Lefties slagging lefties for not being lefties YAWWWWWWNNNNN. The Urban self regard show where everyone really posts about themselves and how great they are. Keyboard Wolfies.
> 
> Where is the thread about the politics of Jay-Z or Ant/Dec or Emmerdale/Corrie/Enders actors/actresses or (insert celebrity here)?
> 
> It all reminds me of Tim Henman. Okay he wasn't #1 tennis saviour who would deliver us, but he was fuck load better than the rest of the Brits at the time. But people slagged him off because he wasn't Federer/Sampras when they should have been slagging off all the other tits.


You saying *you're* better than that, then?


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 16, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You saying *you're* better than that, then?



Why is there no left in the UK? Because they aren't as great as meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

I wonder if in Spain there are loads of people on the internet slating Pablo Iglesias because he's got funny hair, is on TV, has sex with people, talks a bit funny. Hmmm...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2014)

what a really shit comparison that is.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 16, 2014)

this thread is like a prick magnet.  every single flavour of prick eventually pops by to tell us what they think vis a vis what they think this thread is saying.  all of whom wish to insult the posters on here for whatever position the prick thinks "we" hold.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 16, 2014)

Flavoured pricks. :mmmmm:


----------



## Wilson (Nov 16, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> this thread is like a prick magnet.  every single flavour of prick eventually pops by to tell us what they think vis a vis what they think this thread is saying.  all of whom wish to insult the posters on here for whatever position the prick thinks "we" hold.



Aye, its a veritable glory hole.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

I gather from the Speccy, (I kid you not!), that Martin Wright says this of Brand's book...it's...



> ‘....not even worth nicking’.


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 17, 2014)

> from the old white working class



Hmm...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Hmm...





> Martin – *I’ve yet to discover his surname* – is a hard-Left anarchist from the old white working class who hates Britain’s liberal media.





> Damian Thompson is an associate editor of The Spectator



Work hard at their trade, don't they?


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 17, 2014)

Let's laugh at the chav and his quaint views.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

He hates you catholic child stranglers as well btw damian


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 17, 2014)

What upsets me, somewhat, is here is someone with realtive clout and a visible profile to millions... and yet, he draws so much ire from people who (more or less) want serious change to our lives; just like him.

The establishment will be delighted because they know he will ultimately be shot down by those who he wants to change the status quo with.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What upsets me, somewhat, is here is someone with realtive clout and a visible profile to millions... and yet, he draws so much ire from people who (more or less) want serious change to our lives; just like him.
> 
> The establishment will be delighted because they know he will ultimately be shot down by those who he wants to change the status quo with.


This upsets? Upsets you so you had to  come on here to attack unnamed demons. Who - of the anti-brandists-  here do you charge with having power? Who has power here?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i'm sad that we live in an age where we can use the words pick up technique and sexual assault to mean the same thing.


it appears the charmer has been refused entry to the country today.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it appears the charmer has been refused entry to the country today.



perhaps the system isn't broken, after all.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Nov 19, 2014)

I was gonna buy _Revolution_ on Kindle, but from what I've listened to on YouTube the style of writing wanders a bit into strangeness.  So I'm thinking it will go the way of _The Da Vinci Code_ or _Fifty Shades Of Grey_.... multiple copies available from all good charity shops.


----------



## rekil (Nov 19, 2014)

Are you or have you ever been _that_ guy on a demo?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 1, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> In terms of getting the revolution going, yes. I think Britain needs an actual person (or group of people) to get it properly started too. People by themselves have done so little - I am probably saying it badly, but the public did not get out on the streets protesting against the bankers who fucked up the world economy - nobody went to jail - and people did not storm parliament and overthrow the government - that is the level of revolution that needs to happen.
> 
> as an aside, the music scene has also been absent - there should have been a musical revolution documenting what was happening - there wasnt. Why dont people feel inspired anymore??? They are certainly angry - the whole thing is exacerbating. Are people (and when i say 'people' i mean the general public- you me, and average working people of society, paying tax and getting the tube to work every day) just lazy?
> 
> I know i havent articulated myself very well here - but i am honestly wondering about this....if anyone has any thoughts, i'd like to hear it...



Actually, I don't think that's what he's talking about, he's not setting himself as a leader, and he doesn't advocate that there be one.  Those days are over.  My understanding is that he's saying people should become more engaged in their local communities.  They should organize themselves.  He successfully supported the tenants who fought against eviction in an east London community, he's encouraging people to stand with Wallmart workers for a pay raise, etc.  He is inspiring people to think of ways they can become involved.  He has explained over and over again that he's not saying "don't ever vote," just "don't vote" for people who don't represent you."

As to your question, "are people just lazy?"  I think Russell Brand sees that people feel paralyzed.  Partly because they've been indoctrinated to believe "resistance is futile."  He's trying to change people's thinking, to make people realize how much power they really have to change things, if only they ACT.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 1, 2014)

A good discussion to watch:


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 1, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Actually, I don't think that's what he's talking about, he's not setting himself as a leader, and he doesn't advocate that there be one.



I was offering my own opinion in the post you quoted and i do think the public needs to be 'led' by revolutionary persons (not Brand), as the public is lazy and almost apathetic. They would rather do the protesting online (where it makes no real difference) than get out and do it on the streets.  I've been saying on here for years, that Britain needs a revolution and although not the man to lead it, Russell Brand has some good ideas about it



Diana9 said:


> Those days are over.  My understanding is that he's saying people should become more engaged in their local communities.  They should organize themselves.  He successfully supported the tenants who fought against eviction in an east London community, he's encouraging people to stand with Wallmart workers for a pay raise, etc.  He is inspiring people to think of ways they can become involved.  He has explained over and over again that he's not saying "don't ever vote," just "don't vote" for people who don't represent you."



I agree - am reading his book at the moment and he is very much for communities organising themselves (and has never nominated himself on any kind of pedestal as leader - neither have i). On the voting thing - I understand what he means, like 'only vote for an entity that actually represents you, or not at all' - i find that philosophy too idealistic - i think vote for whats closest to your beliefs and to deter right wing conservatives/ Tories getting power



Diana9 said:


> As to your question, "are people just lazy?"  I think Russell Brand sees that people feel paralyzed.  Partly because they've been indoctrinated to believe "resistance is futile."  He's trying to change people's thinking, to make people realize how much power they really have to change things, if only they ACT.



True, and he is right.


----------



## treelover (Dec 1, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Actually, I don't think that's what he's talking about, he's not setting himself as a leader, and he doesn't advocate that there be one.  Those days are over.  My understanding is that he's saying people should become more engaged in their local communities.  They should organize themselves.  He successfully supported the tenants who fought against eviction in an east London community, he's encouraging people to stand with Wallmart workers for a pay raise, etc.  He is inspiring people to think of ways they can become involved.  He has explained over and over again that he's not saying "don't ever vote," just "don't vote" for people who don't represent you."
> 
> As to your question, "are people just lazy?"  I think Russell Brand sees that people feel paralyzed.  Partly because they've been indoctrinated to believe "resistance is futile."  He's trying to change people's thinking, to make people realize how much power they really have to change things, if only they ACT.





Butchers said in reply to my query 'if any of the 'radical chic' lot in the 60/70's showed the same level of commitment Brand seems to be showing?', he said there were many, but whom?, apart from the Redgraves, be good to list a few.

Btw, I get the impression he is off to Ireland soon to support the water charges protests.

welcome to P/P Diana9


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 1, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I was offering my own opinion in the post you quoted and i do think the public needs to be 'led' by revolutionary persons (not Brand), as the public is lazy and almost apathetic. They would rather do the protesting online (where it makes no real difference) than get out and do it on the streets.  I've been saying on here for years, that Britain needs a revolution and although not the man to lead it, Russell Brand has some good ideas about it
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree about not voting at all.  Here in California we have ballot measures that can have a real impact on people's lives, and a massive turnout to keep the right wing conservatives out of power would have been good, but alas, the opposite happened, mostly the Republican extremists showed up at the polls.  At the same time, I agree with Brand that the two-party system we have in the States generally does not represent us.  So I think he's right that the bottom-up, grassroots, approach makes more sense than just blindly voting out of a sense of civic duty, even when we've seen time and again that nothing really changes.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> Butchers said in reply to my query 'if any of the 'radical chic' lot in the 60/70's showed the same level of commitment Brand seems to be showing?', he said there were many, but whom?, apart from the Redgraves, be good to list a few.
> 
> Btw, I get the impression he is off to Ireland soon to support the water charges protests.
> 
> welcome to P/P Diana9



Well, there was John Lennon.

Thanks for the welcome


----------



## free spirit (Dec 1, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> So I think he's right that the bottom-up, grassroots, approach makes more sense than just blindly voting out of a sense of civic duty, even when we've seen time and again that nothing really changes.


no, he's wrong because you can actually do both at the same time.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no, he's wrong because you can actually do both at the same time.



One can do both, IF one can find people who will actually represent the interests of the people. Unfortunately, the choice we're given is to vote for "the lesser evil."  Russel Brand is trying to awaken people to the idea that that just isn't good enough, because we're still left with an "evil" system that serves an elite minority, and the rest of us be damned.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 2, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> One can do both, IF one can find people who will actually represent the interests of the people.  By the looks of things elected officials are generally not doing that.


even in the absence of that you can vote for the least worst option while also campaigning for something better.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2014)

that worked out great for you last time you tried it eh?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> that worked out great for you last time you tried it eh?


did whatever you did work out any better?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> even in the absence of that you can vote for the least worst option while also campaigning for something better.



See my post above, I edited it to add that voting for "the lesser evil" is part of the problem.  All it does is hold us in check.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> did whatever you did work out any better?


For me? Yeah, of course. 

Just saying, you've already tried this voting for (hell, even campaigning for) the 'least worst option' in the very recent past, and look where it got you. That you can still bang that same drum 5 years later is... odd.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> For me? Yeah, of course.
> 
> Just saying, you've already tried this voting for (hell, even campaigning for) the 'least worst option' in the very recent past, and look where it got you. That you can still bang that same drum 5 years later is... odd.


vs not voting?

sorry, I fail to see how me not voting would have led to a different / better result.

or how encouraging a lot of young left wing types not to vote can possibly do anything other than aid the other side who continue to vote.

Obviously I didn't end up with what I'd hoped might be the 'least bad' end result that I could have a minor level of influence over, but how exactly would it help the situation if all the more left wing lib dem voters from last time simply didn't vote at all next time? Or extend it further, if all the left wing voters entirely didn't vote, how would that improve the situation? Maybe we could all share the moral high ground, must be nice up there.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2014)

Maybe they could spend their political energies somewhere more worthwhile? All I know is, the 'least worst option' (well, _your_ least worse option) has - in the very recent past - been demonstrated to be horseshit. Voting lib dem last time proved to be worse than doing nothing. You should have stayed in  bed.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> vs not voting?
> 
> sorry, I fail to see how me not voting would have led to a different / better result.
> 
> ...



One thing that can happen is you give "the bad guys" enough rope to hang themselves with, so that everybody can see how really bad they are.  Another thing that can happen is people, once coming to the realization that their vote is pointless, they'll become more self-reliant, more engaged in their community. As long as we passively accept the "lesser evil" scheme (and compliantly support it with our vote, expecting nothing better for ourselves), nothing will change.

We can look back at history and learn a few lessons.

A decade before the American Rebellion became a Revolution (i.e.,  a "War of Independence") in 1776, the colonists came up with a brilliant strategy:  the boycott.  They boycotted all British goods.  This brought the colonists together in solidarity.  It worked then, a similar strategy can work again against the corporate powers.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> Maybe they could spend their political energies somewhere more worthwhile? All I know is, the 'least worst option' (well, _your_ least worse option) has - in the very recent past - been demonstrated to be horseshit.


has it?

do you think the lib dems were the party I considered to be the 'least worst option' on that poll?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Well, there was John Lennon.
> 
> Thanks for the welcome




lets all just have a massive lie in and claim not getting out of bed as a political act.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 2, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> One thing that can happen is you give "the bad guys" enough rope to hang themselves with, so that everybody can see how really bad they are.


no, they hang us, or if not us then those less able to stand up for themselves than us.

And what do you expect would happen once everybody else sees how bad they are? Would they also stop voting? I'm sure that'd really show them.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no, they hang us, or if not us then those less able to stand up for themselves than us.



That's why we who are able have to stand with those who are less able.  That's what Brand is doing.



> And what do you expect would happen once everybody else sees how bad they are? Would they also stop voting? I'm sure that'd really show them.



No, I would expect individuals to arise from the community who have proven their commitment to serve the people, to run for office.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no, they hang us



Sounds like you've bought into their "be afraid" meme.  Fear is what makes people passive, and that's just how the powers-that-be want us.

Courage is a revolutionary act in itself.

A good place to start pushing back is  -- don't be afraid.

"The only thing to fear is fear itself" - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Anyway, it doesn't have to be that dramatic.  One thing everybody can do without fearing retribution is -- stop buying stuff you don't need and become more discriminating about who you do buy from.  Buy local, support your small business owners. Vote with your money.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 2, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> No, I would expect individuals to arise from the community who have proven their commitment to serve the people, to run for office.


how does that work if nobody is supposed to be voting for anybody?

or do we wait for brand to give the green light to vote for whichever party he endorses / launch his own party?

what if there are already individuals who have arisen from the community worth voting for now? Should we all still not vote, or should we vote for them? What if they're mostly inline with your thinking, but differ on a few issues? Still vote for them, or continue not voting until your perfect candidate comes along?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> how does that work if nobody is supposed to be voting for anybody?
> 
> or do we wait for brand to give the green light to vote for whichever party he endorses / launch his own party?
> 
> what if there are already individuals who have arisen from the community worth voting for now? Should we all still not vote, or should we vote for them? What if they're mostly inline with your thinking, but differ on a few issues? Still vote for them, or continue not voting until your perfect candidate comes along?



I think you missed it -- he's saying don't vote for those who don't represent you.  If they do, then by all means vote for them.

Who is presenting the people?  Got any names?  Seen any positive results?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 2, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I think you missed it -- he's saying don't vote for those who don't represent you.  If they do, then by all means vote for them.


Yep, I have missed that nuance to what he's saying.

I guess it depends to what degree someone has to actually represent my views before being worth my vote.



Diana9 said:


> Who is presenting the people?  Got any names?  Seen any positive results?


there's very few who have actually got anywhere in the UK, and none that are absolutely perfect.

The greens are making waves about being anti-austerity, anti-neoliberalist, caroline lucas (their one MP) talks a good talk, but their only council hasn't exactly given a lot of cause for confidence that they'd be much better if in power.

I've been following the stuff a former member of UK band the happy mondays has been up to in Salford launching a party called the reality party to stand himself and a few candidates elsewhere, his heart's definitely in the right place, and he's been quite active in supporting anti-fracking campaigns and other campaigns. There are also various other small leftwing parties of various hues standing candidates in different contituencies.

Round me, the closest to my views in policy terms would be the alliance for green socialism, but unfortunately they're also pretty much useless at campaigns and obviously stood no chance, so last time I voted and did a bit of campaigning for the lib dems in an effort to ensure the tories didn't retake the seat, and at the time their manifesto policies had some reasonable stuff in it. As killer B alluded to, that didn't exactly work out very well as they ended up in coalition for the tories and immediately ditched virtually everything that had made me consider them worth giving a chance to.

I think it's a bit different over here as there often are quite a few options on the ballots for MPs, and often will be a pretty left wing candidate from one group or another. If brand were shouting from the rooftops for people to vote in droves for whichever candidate made most sense to them rather than the 'vote labour with no illusions' / anybody but the tories option then that'd be a bit more interesting - if that actually is his message, then I don't think that's what's coming through from the media coverage (including the articles he's written that I've read).

UKIP have effectively risen at the opposite end of the political spectrum by breaking the same sort of fears of people wasting their vote with a UKIP vote, plus appealing to those who otherwise wouldn't have voted. I think a major opportunity has been missed in the last few years for a real left wing party / coalition to be formed / emerge form the shadows to do the same on the left, particularly given that there was 10% or so of the electorate who'd voted lib dem because they'd viewed them as being left of centre, who were / are looking for a credible alternative to vote for. The greens are now benefiting by default from this, but whether they really will prove to be different to the lib dem experience  is fairly questionable - there's certainly lots of suspicion of them from the rest of the left.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Actually, I don't think that's what he's talking about, he's not setting himself as a leader, and he doesn't advocate that there be one.  Those days are over.  My understanding is that he's saying people should become more engaged in their local communities.  They should organize themselves.  He successfully supported the tenants who fought against eviction in an east London community, he's encouraging people to stand with Wallmart workers for a pay raise, etc.  He is inspiring people to think of ways they can become involved.  He has explained over and over again that he's not saying "don't ever vote," just "don't vote" for people who don't represent you."
> 
> As to your question, "are people just lazy?"  I think Russell Brand sees that people feel paralyzed.  Partly because they've been indoctrinated to believe "resistance is futile."  He's trying to change people's thinking, to make people realize how much power they really have to change things, if only they ACT.



Although indoctrination plays a part, it's a fairly weak force - in an information-rich society it's difficult to successfully indoctrinate people who don't wish to be indoctrinated. At best you can ensure that your (i.e. The Establishment) discourse is hegemonic. Possibly the largest motivator for inaction, in my opinion, is that people will not revolt or rebel if they have anything to lose - families; property; employment etc.
As for power to change, there's a problem with change within the existing system - there are very few mechanisms by which change can be realised, and those mechanisms are controlled by "them", not by us. Getting turkeys to vote for Christmas will be difficult, which is why the only assured way of realising change is full-on revolution, a dissolution of the current political system, and the building of a *truly* democratic society, where everyone within that society who wants a say, gets a say, *not* just the "right" to vote every couple of years.  And guess what? More people are scared of revolution than they are of repression, unfortunately.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 2, 2014)

*Russell Brand's advice:  "Run your own communities with existing technology."*

*I strongly believe we must create a network of online local communities, using existing technology.*

In light of this, I came across this lovely Argentinian woman speaking at a TedTalk.  She has some interesting things to say about "How to Upgrade Democracy in the Internet Era."  I depart somewhat from her idea of creating new parties.  Not that I exclude the idea completely, but I think candidates will invariably be absorbed into the existing system.  We've tried working from the inside, I believe we have to work from outside the system in order to change it.   I am therefore more interested in people using the technology to "run their own communities" to create alternative models of democracy.

Anyway, have a look:

http://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancin...acy_for_the_internet_era?language=en#t-410055

*Transcript*

http://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancin...y_for_the_internet_era/transcript?language=en


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 2, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Yep, I have missed that nuance to what he's saying.
> 
> I guess it depends to what degree someone has to actually represent my views before being worth my vote.
> 
> ...



By creating so many new parties don't we run the risk of becoming even more fractured and divisive?  There are only so many pieces in the pie chart, and you can bet that the traditional parties will take the bigger share, if for no other reason than they are better funded.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although indoctrination plays a part, it's a fairly weak force - in an information-rich society it's difficult to successfully indoctrinate people who don't wish to be indoctrinated. At best you can ensure that your (i.e. The Establishment) discourse is hegemonic. Possibly the largest motivator for inaction, in my opinion, is that people will not revolt or rebel if they have anything to lose - families; property; employment etc.
> As for power to change, there's a problem with change within the existing system - there are very few mechanisms by which change can be realised, and those mechanisms are controlled by "them", not by us. Getting turkeys to vote for Christmas will be difficult, which is why the only assured way of realising change is full-on revolution, a dissolution of the current political system, and the building of a *truly* democratic society, where everyone within that society who wants a say, gets a say, *not* just the "right" to vote every couple of years.  And guess what? More people are scared of revolution than they are of repression, unfortunately.



The problem with most revolutions (there are exceptions of course.  The American revolution is a case in point, although I say that guardedly) is that they leave a power vacuum.  We saw this in the French Revolution and more recently in the "Arab Spring."  This is probably why the word scares people.  

Russell Brand is either trying to reinvent the word or uses it to bring attention to his ideas.  So far he's succeeded with the latter.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 3, 2014)

The Independent and channel 4 go full out sleeze against Russell Brand, the snides. But no-one having it. The article is the worst journalism I've seen for ages. Check the comments under it.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...ll-brand-how-much-his-house-costs--xkgX6Tgqdx


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> The Independent and channel 4 go full out sleeze against Russell Brand, the snides. But no-one having it. The article is the worst journalism I've seen for ages. Check the comments under it.
> 
> http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...ll-brand-how-much-his-house-costs--xkgX6Tgqdx




Good for Brand, and good for the woman who stood by him.

I'm amused by how the media is trying so desperately to smear Russel in order to divert attention from what he's saying and doing for ordinary people.  They're making asses of themselves.  There's nothing you can pin on Brand.  His life is an open book, warts and all, which he fully admits to.  What's more, he's not a politician, he's not running for office, he doesn't have to worry about his reputation, which is irrelevant anyway, and he doesn't work for corporations so he can't be fired.  He's free and he uses his freedom to try to help others free themselves from an oppressive system.  Plus, he's a comedian, he knows exactly how to handle hecklers, and he does so brilliantly.  Like him, hate him, it doesn't matter.  His ideas are what matters. 

The laughs on you, snides.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Good for Brand, and good for the woman who spoke up for him.
> 
> I'm amused by how the media is trying so desperately to smear Russel in order to divert attention from what he's saying and doing for ordinary people.  They're making asses of themselves.  There's nothing you can pin on Brand.  His life is an open book, warts and all, which he fully admits to.  What's more, he's not a politician, he's not running for office, he doesn't have to worry about his reputation, which is irrelevant anyway, and he doesn't work for corporations so he can't be fired.  He's free and he uses his freedom to try to help others free themselves from an oppressive system.  Plus, he's a comedian, he knows exactly how to handle hecklers, and he does so brilliantly.  Like him, hate him, it doesn't matter.  His ideas are what matters.
> 
> The laughs on you, snides.


I haven't that freedom.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

PR guff drivel.


----------



## OneStrike (Dec 3, 2014)

I wanted to reply to that independent article but they appear to want to know everything about my online activity/friends/circles e.t.c.  That Brand was there shouldn't be reason to make him the main story, even if it was his attendance that pricked the reporters editors ears to events.  The bloke is flawed, but open about it and appears to genuinely be trying to better himself.  The lady that stepped in and backed him up was superb, as he stated in his latest podcast thingy, The Trews.  I'm intrigued to know what his rent is though!


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I haven't that freedom.



Then you have to free yourself.  We all do (with a little help and inspiration from our friend, Russel Brand  )


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

> I'm amused by how the media is trying so desperately to smear Russel in order to divert attention from what he's saying and doing for ordinary people.



Let's talk about all these things diane. I'll go first - what smears? They fucking love him, they cannot get enough of him - none, or very little, critical. What smears then do you refer to?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> The problem with most revolutions (there are exceptions of course.  The American revolution is a case in point, although I say that guardedly) is that they leave a power vacuum.  We saw this in the French Revolution and more recently in the "Arab Spring."  This is probably why the word scares people.
> 
> Russell Brand is either trying to reinvent the word or uses it to bring attention to his ideas.  So far he's succeeded with the latter.


but so far he's just identified vocally that we who make and do are the people maintaining the upper portions of society- beyond some hippy shit about shift in global consciousness where else is he going?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Then you have to free yourself.  We all do (with a little help and inspiration from our friend, Russel Brand  )


I can't free myself from rent and housing and travel and child care and food and health and other social responsibilities.

Are you a child?


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 3, 2014)

Rent is 76,000 a year according to the front page headline on the Sun tomorrow, to a landlord who dodges tax.

Hatchet job from the scum press, perhaps an indication he's doing something right.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Rent is 76,000 a year according to the front page headline on the Sun tomorrow, to a landlord who dodges tax.
> 
> Hatchet job from the scum press, perhaps an indication he's doing something right.


?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Rent is 76,000 a year according to the front page headline on the Sun tomorrow, to a landlord who dodges tax.
> 
> Hatchet job from the scum press, perhaps an indication he's doing something right.



you mean he pays rent of 76k per year while talking of revolution and rights? I know you can't go full Assisi on this but 76k? for real?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Well, there was John Lennon.
> 
> Thanks for the welcome


In what way - he used his money to appear radical? By funding black dwarf?

What exactly did he do?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> you mean he pays rent of 76k per year while talking of revolution and rights? I know you can't go full Assisi on this but 76k? for real?


That's his london stay at home place. His multi-million hollywood one is another.

Damn right it is relevant  - _we _brought it up before the fucking sun. And it was damn right relevant when lennon bottled it too.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 3, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

The fucking drivel on this thread the last day.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> but so far he's just identified vocally that we who make and do are the people maintaining the upper portions of society- beyond some hippy shit about shift in global consciousness where else is he going?



Um... he successfully helped prevent the eviction of low-income people from their homes (like the woman who stood by him).

*First victory for Russell Brand's 'revolution' as Tory MP's New Era Estate company pulls out of Hoxton development *

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-pulls-out-of-hoxton-development-9864152.html


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> View attachment 64513


What effectiveness is is this combating? It's just a posh cunt being caught? Show me the victories that would say 'get brand'.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I can't free myself from rent and housing and travel and child care and food and health and other social responsibilities.
> 
> Are you a child?



Having responsibilities doesn't mean you're not free.  It just means you're an adult.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Um... he successfully helped prevent the eviction of low-income people from their homes (like the woman who stood by him).
> 
> *First victory for Russell Brand's 'revolution' as Tory MP's New Era Estate company pulls out of Hoxton development *
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-pulls-out-of-hoxton-development-9864152.html



he piggybacked on an already hard fought campaign. Victory to beardy sleaze comedians making things work _for _us


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Um... he successfully helped prevent the eviction of low-income people from their homes (like the woman who stood by him).
> 
> *First victory for Russell Brand's 'revolution' as Tory MP's New Era Estate company pulls out of Hoxton development *
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-pulls-out-of-hoxton-development-9864152.html


I think, with the best will in the world, you don't know a single fucking thing about that campaign and are being pretty insulting in your retelling.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Having responsibilities doesn't mean you're not free.  It just means you're an adult.


That's great cheers. Any other trite sayings masquerading  as deep thought you want to bore us with?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

I've never in my life contemplated earning plus 30K. Perhaps I have limited ambition. I just want a roof to call my own and work to maintain my other needs. 78 thousand pounds for rental on ONE of your gaffs. Vive la.


----------



## mentalchik (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Having responsibilities doesn't mean you're not free.  It just means you're an adult.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I've never in my life contemplated earning plus 30K. Perhaps I have limited ambition. I just want a roof to call my own and work to maintain my other needs. 78 thousand pounds for rental on ONE of your gaffs. Vive la.


People only say that to make us fight within _ourself_.

What sort of _ourself _contains a millionaire hollywood house owner knocking out 80 grand a year on rent? None that i want to be part of.


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> View attachment 64513


 he's not responsible for his landlords tax arangements, and i'd rant about high rent if I was paying 76kpa.
Not a fan of the bloke, but didn't know about Newera until started talking about and fair play for sticking with it. Think he might come out of this quite well,as long as his ego  doesn't get in the way.  he is not the story.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What effectiveness is is this combating? It's just a posh cunt being caught? Show me the victories that would say 'get brand'.



The victory is that he has a voice, is using it, and people are listening.

Over a million people viewed the interview with Paxman on youtube.

 

You don't get that kind of attention unless you're saying things worth listening to, things nobody else has the balls to say.

edited to add:  correction, over ten million viewed the video.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> The victory is that he has a voice, is using it, and people are listening.
> 
> Over a million people viewed the interview with Paxman on youtube.
> 
> ...



The victory is a that a famous person gets to speak? You're serious. All the things that you don't believe are popular. Why must they shut down these music starts with endless fucking stories and pieces on them? WHY WHY WHYYYYYYY


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> People only say that to make us fight within _ourself_.
> 
> What sort of _ourself _contains a millionaire hollywood house owner knocking out 80 grand a year on rent? None that i want to be part of.



Why do you care how much money he has?  Why don't you focus on the billions the Wallmart family has, while they refuse to give their workers a living wage?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Why do you care how much money he has?  Why don't you focus on the billions the Wallmart family has, while refusing to give their workers a living wage?


Why don't you care? I want an answer diane.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

And it better not be that there are other richer people. I tell you fucking now.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why don't you care? I want an answer diane.



Because it has no relevance to what he's saying about real people suffering real oppression from the oligarchs who run the world without any restraint.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Because it has no relevance to what he's saying about real people suffering real oppression from the oligarchs who run the world without any restraint.


That's not much of an answer. You've just said that you don't care where money comes from, how it's maintained and what it does as long as you like the person  with it.

To think in london that paying 80 grand rent isn't part of the problem of rent inflation and thus knocking social housing is beyond stupidity - the sort you can only get from people living 4000 miles away.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Because it has no relevance to what he's saying about real people suffering real oppression from the oligarchs who run the world without any restraint.


I don't know what you think social housing or 'low income' people are but you better get informed before talking next.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

Russell Brand hasn't made his millions exploiting labor, he isn't buying low income housing and then raising the rent on people who can't afford to pay, like the richest MP in Britain did.  He's made his millions making people laugh. I have no problem with how he makes his living.  He's entitled to his millions as far as I'm concerned.

Here, argue with Russell Brand.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> The victory is that he has a voice, is using it, and people are listening.
> 
> Over a million people viewed the interview with Paxman on youtube.
> 
> ...





Do you know why thats so insulting of a post? It's because plenty of people have been saying things in a more cogent manner than Brand for generations and the fact that some comedian has suddenly said things you agree with in a shit and easily ridiculed manner does not equal a revelation for the class. I've had conversations in the smoke room at a warehouse job that gets his gist without the woo. Thats before we even get into how sexually dodgy he is. 

Someone famous mentions the screamingly obvious class war and suddenly he is the messiah


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Russell Brand hasn't made his millions exploiting labor, he isn't buying low income housing and then raising the rent on people who can't afford to pay, like the richest MP in Britain did.  He's made his millions making people laugh. I have no problem with how he makes his living.  He's entitled to his millions as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> Here, argue with Russell Brand.



What's the point of posting that? Really?

_I can't be fecking bothered so here's a video that tells you right.
_
You can't tell me diane. You can't because you only have _ah but he's not the worst now come away. 

You literally don't know how housing and money and rent works here - but you sure know how celebrity works.

You're so not from here. Let's keep it tht way._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Do you know why thats so insulting of a post? It's because plenty of people have been saying things in a more cogent manner than Brand for generations and the fact that some comedian has suddenly said things you agree with in a shit and easily ridiculed manner does not equal a revelation for the class. I've had conversations in the smoke room at a warehouse job that gets his gist without the woo. Thats before we even get into how sexually dodgy he is.
> 
> Someone famous mentions the screamingly obvious class war and suddenly he is the messiah


News to cali  apparently. Nice of them to fill us low income types in and all.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Do you know why thats so insulting of a post? It's because plenty of people have been saying things in a more cogent manner than Brand for generations and the fact that some comedian has suddenly said things you agree with in a shit and easily ridiculed manner does not equal a revelation for the class. I've had conversations in the smoke room at a warehouse job that gets his gist without the woo. Thats before we even get into how sexually dodgy he is.
> 
> Someone famous mentions the screamingly obvious class war and suddenly he is the messiah



Sure, that's just how the oligarchs want us, whispering to each other in warehouses, unable to speak openly or be heard so that the whole world can hear the truth of what we're saying in our whispering rooms.

The importance of Russel Brand is that he's amplifying our voices.  He's said that's all he's doing.  He makes no claims to being the messiah.

So just run along and whisper with your friends.  They've got you where they want you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

are you taking the piss or something?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

Butchersapron, if you spent the time you're wasting butchering Brand and insulting me doing something kind and loving, you could actually become part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

whispering in the canteen. We shall wreck the machines!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Sure, that's just how the oligarchs want us, whispering to each other in warehouses, unable to speak openly or be heard so that the whole world can hear the truth of what we're saying in our whispering rooms.
> 
> The importance of Russel Brand is that he's amplifying our voices.  He's said that's all he's doing.  He makes no claims to being the messiah.
> 
> So just run along and whisper with your friends.  They've got you where they want you.


We're openly  laughing at him whilst the olograchs publish and favourbaly review his book. He's destroying my voice. He's making it his. You're making it yours and 911


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Do you know why thats so insulting of a post? It's because plenty of people have been saying things in a more cogent manner than Brand for generations and the fact that some comedian has suddenly said things you agree with in a shit and easily ridiculed manner does not equal a revelation for the class. I've had conversations in the smoke room at a warehouse job that gets his gist without the woo. Thats before we even get into how sexually dodgy he is.
> 
> Someone famous mentions the screamingly obvious class war and suddenly he is the messiah


 So he deserves that Sun front page


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

Thats what you want, your voice amplified through a human loudspeaker who cannot keep his dick in his trousers and further to that rings up elderly men on live radio to boast about having screwed his granddaughter.

vive


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Butchersapron, if you spent the time you're wasting butchering Brand and insulting me doing something kind and loving, you could actually become part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.


I do waste time doing that. I didn't insult you. You are a trucking idiot unable to reply to content though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Butchersapron, if you spent the time you're wasting butchering Brand and insulting me doing something kind and loving, you could actually become part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.


What an odd thing to say though - i wonder how many minutes a day i spend doing the juveniley alliterate butchering brand and the other thing. I reckon not so much on the first. Under a second. Over a week prob none. Now the other stuff...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

gosub said:


> So he deserves that Sun front page


I don't give a flying what that rag publishes tbf, any take down of Brand will be gross hypocrisy from monied charlie chang friends of fleet street and they can go fuck themselves.  I critic him on my terms, for reasons relevant to my class. Not fist bumbping with shitty right wing gutter press


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't insult you. You are a trucking idiot.



LOL


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> LOL


Keep walking, keep walking  nah, keep walking - see that sign? Keep walking, keep walking, see that bus, keep walking, not today, keep walking there's a bench have a wank. I can't hear you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> LOL


What are you involved in with "low income"people diane?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

see I can forgive brand his substance abuse, we have all been there. Or some of us have anyway. It's the thing r/w press will use to crucify him. I can't forgive his sleaze though. It's a thing given space in his booky wook.

And thats while not really fine at least he is making atempts to deal with it. Wank four times a day is how you should deal with it lest lust cloud judgement.

Regardless of that and in recognition that nobody is perfect- he is beyond not perfect. Keystage 3 communism plated up by a very compromised source. It's just asking for any informed and thinking r/w voice to tear him apart and by extension valid points he makes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

and I don't want that to read as 'he's making the rest of us look like lightweight cunts' but he is


----------



## free spirit (Dec 3, 2014)

Brand is like the counter point to the old dissent, RTS, type ethos of not having a spokesperson to stop the spokesperson becoming the defacto leader.

BY dint of being the most famous, most well resourced, loudest mouth brand has now been packaged and sold back to us as our glorious leader and we should all be thankful to him for being so good as to volunteer himself to take the lead on our behalf.

Not that the dissent method wasn't problematic, but this is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## rorymac (Dec 3, 2014)

What he/anyone is up against


----------



## BigTom (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> are you taking the piss or something?



Come now DC, what has the working class ever achieved by dint of workplace discussions eh? nothing, ever. In fact, by having these conversations instead of listening to a celeb on YouTube, you're holding things back!


----------



## BigTom (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Butchersapron, if you spent the time you're wasting butchering Brand and insulting me doing something kind and loving, you could actually become part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.



So we can't criticise? What a foolish perspective to have, how do you develop better strategies, tactics, policies, ideas, practice and action without criticism?

I really hate that attitude, there's pointless sectarian bickering sure, but nobody should be beyond critique.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Sure, that's just how the oligarchs want us, whispering to each other in warehouses, unable to speak openly or be heard so that the whole world can hear the truth of what we're saying in our whispering rooms.
> 
> The importance of Russel Brand is that he's amplifying our voices.  He's said that's all he's doing.  He makes no claims to being the messiah.
> 
> So just run along and whisper with your friends.  They've got you where they want you.



Actual fucking lol.


----------



## newbie (Dec 3, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Brand is like the counter point to the old dissent, RTS, type ethos of not having a spokesperson to stop the spokesperson becoming the defacto leader.
> 
> BY dint of being the most famous, most well resourced, loudest mouth brand has now been packaged and sold back to us as our glorious leader and we should all be thankful to him for being so good as to volunteer himself to take the lead on our behalf.
> 
> Not that the dissent method wasn't problematic, but this is fucking ridiculous.


at least the self appointed Standard Bearer is easily identifiable, perfect for the popular national sport of the British- tearing anyone prominent to shreds.  The faceless, rotating spokesperson just leads to dull discussions about the _Tyranny of Structurelessness_.

Looking backwards, neither seem to achieve much anyway, although the voice of a comedian has reach and longevity that others struggle to manage. So maybe Brand will establish himself as some sort of symbol, used as lazily as the "doomed" bloke in Dads Army or Citizen Smith.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 3, 2014)

what i don't like to see is making it personal. so he has all this money he made from his books, films, comedy, tv whatever he has done, what would you have him do, live in a hovel? would that make his message taste better? he is someone with a high profile who is saying stuff i agree with, that in itself is a refreshing change.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 3, 2014)

BigTom said:


> So we can't criticise? What a foolish perspective to have, how do you develop better strategies, tactics, policies, ideas, practice and action without criticism?
> 
> I really hate that attitude, there's pointless sectarian bickering sure, but nobody should be beyond critique.



On this thread no better strategies have been developed, no ideas have been put forward and the criticism which appears looks very much like sectarian ranting, (including a complaint that a Russell Brand video was posted in the Russell Brand thread, I shit you not).

Russell Brand supporting any campaign will garner more support and inspire more similiar campaigns than all the sectarian and self marginalized political groups have done in the last 30 years. He is being attacked by the right for taking a left wing stance. Is it the job of the left to attack him with the same arguments or would it be more constructive to build on the interest he is generating in these campaigns to help further them? After all he is reaching a wide audience.

Are you doing it better?

Look at the woman in the video, her campaigning has given her more confidence and Brand got her in front of a camera in front of 10 downing street. What's wrong with that? Why focus so much on him?

As a person who was squeezed out of London by gentrification myself, who works part time and struggles to reach the end of the month and has kids, I wholeheartedly approve of Russell Brand's way of bringing politics to the masses.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

You prat,  he simply goes to pre existing things. He doesn't make them happen.  How backwards can you get things? Strategy? Strategy came up with those things. Other people discussing their common conditions cane up with those things. Not him.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

How debased.  How desperate.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 3, 2014)

He didn't dream up the campaign but he is giving it oxygen. Encouraging others to become active. He will probably be more effective with this method than 50 years of Harry Potter lookalikes selling papers in the rain.

He is not a substitute for a political group. He is playing the role of the paper.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Oh fantastic,  more celebrity oxygen. Not more working class people talking about their conditions then acting. As they already are every day, but celebrity oxygen. And if you spot a celebrity using you.  Just keep quiet as there's no other strategy.

 Of if you see gorms swamping with empty spiritual rhetoric,  with conspiracy, with talk of love...


----------



## sim667 (Dec 3, 2014)

A lot of left wing types tend to be very quick to attack and very belittling if there's something they don't agree with.

Brand is making that side of politics more accessible, and in all honesty anyone who does that can only be a good thing imho.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

sim667 said:


> A lot of left wing types tend to be very quick to attack and very belittling if there's something they don't agree with.
> 
> Brand is making that side of politics more accessible, and in all honesty anyone who does that can only be a good thing imho.


What side of politics exactly?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

It's the other people already fighting,  already working together that are giving him oxygen. Not the other way round.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's the other people already fighting,  already working together that are giving him oxygen. Not the other way round.



He's a latter day Alexandre Ledru-Rollin.

_There go the people. I must follow them for I am their leader._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

I tell you what, what we're missing from our grass roots campaign is an injection of celeb-culture. Then people who hate celeb culture can applaud celeb-culture and criticise those who mock their hatred of celeb-culture under the guise of really really caring for the _victims _- don't you care about _the victims_?

Let's be clear here - brand is entering these pre-exisitng things _as a celeb_, as someone who will go on the tv with his arm around young girls, who will steal their air-time, who will take the words (and they've been brilliant words) out of their mouth and he is someone who takes it away from them. From a rooted spreading campaign that recognises where it's strengths lie - that is, in what it shares in common with people across the capital and the country and the recognition that we change things when we act together rather than elites imposing as they like - back to giving power to a celeb elite, back to _the image_, back to the media, tjhe same media that these clowns thinks directs and controls _the victims. _What a disgusting tawdry lash-up.

All these people going on about brands involvement in New Era PR-  what did you do? Did Brand's involvement prod you to do anything at all?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> He's a latter day Alexandre Ledru-Rollin.
> 
> _There go the people. I must follow them for I am their leader._


You can fuck off and all. That someone likes your post after arguing what they just did and doesn't recognise the sneering reactionary tone is telling. The idea of people having their own ideas and of the people that power recognises as being leaders (because this is how power must see things) being genuine committed people laughed at and liked.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

I am not a particular fan of Russell Brand (sometimes I think he can be a bit of a prick), but I was really fucked off by the way that interviewer attacked him on the C4 News report on the housing demo the other day.  I wanted to hear an interview about the issues, not have some jumped up reporter getting excited about being given a chance to have a go at Brand.  The woman who stepped in at the end and gave the interviewer an earful was absolutely wonderful


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> I am not a particular fan of Russell Brand (sometimes I think he can be a bit of a prick), but I was really fucked off by the way that interviewer attacked him on the C4 News report on the housing demo the other day.  I wanted to hear an interview about the issues, not have some jumped up reporter getting excited about being given a chance to have a go at Brand.  The woman who stepped in at the end and gave the interviewer an earful was absolutely wonderful


He could have talked directly to the people effected then. But no, Brand.

Brand Brand Brand. That's the ground he's wrestled the thing onto. Onto TV interviews.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 3, 2014)

I missed that ^^


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He could have talked to the people effected then. But no, Brand.
> 
> Brand Brand Brand.



Sadly, the demo wouldn't have had a news camera there to talk to anyone if there hadn't been a 'sleb' there - don't pretend you don't know that. :/


----------



## sim667 (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> Sadly, the demo wouldn't have had a news camera there to talk to anyone if there hadn't been a 'sleb' there - don't pretend you don't know that. :/


 
I mean I missed the interview.


----------



## rekil (Dec 3, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i think hes met David Graeber at a couple of things (what we really need is *a lefty Heat magazine* to keep on top of these things)


Gonna have a stab at this. If I can think of a title.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

sim667 said:


> I mean I missed the interview.



I was talking to Butchers, as indicated by the fact I quoted his post.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> Sadly, the demo wouldn't have had a news camera there to talk to anyone if there hadn't been a 'sleb' there - don't pretend you don't know that. :/


Why not? And what use was it anyway? And as it goes C4 had already been there without Brand.

And now they did - we get a debate about russel brand being unable to deal with criticism. Not New Era and their practices.


----------



## Limerick Red (Dec 3, 2014)

copliker said:


> Gonna have a stab at this. If I can think of a title.


Red heat?
OK! Comrade?
Internationale enquirer?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

copliker said:


> Gonna have a stab at this. If I can think of a title.


_Me -the magazine for me and people like me. We're greaaaat!_


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why not? And what use was it anyway? And as it goes C4 had already been there without Brand.
> 
> And now they did - we get a debate about russel brand being unable to deal with criticism. Not New Era and their practices.



I don't want a debate about Brand, I think he's a bit of a tosser.  I do think his presence there garnered a bit more publicity than it would have had otherwise (I've been on fuck loads of protests about housing that no-one will every fucking remember unless they were there, no reporter ever turns up to most things) and I think if anyone is at fault for detracting from the purpose of the protest, it was the interviewer.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> I don't want a debate about Brand, I think he's a bit of a tosser.  I do think his presence there garnered a bit more publicity than it would have had otherwise (I've been on fuck loads of protests about housing that no-one will every fucking remember unless they were there) and I think if anyone is at fault for detracting from the purpose of the protest, it was the interviewer.


About fucking brand. That's the publicity. Brand.


----------



## rekil (Dec 3, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Red heat?
> OK! Comrade?
> Internationale enquirer?





butchersapron said:


> _Me -the magazine for me and people like me. We're greaaaat!_


MeMeMeMe

We've already got an EXCLUSIVE report on Laurie's hailing of siegheiling Weev's release from chokey.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> I was talking to Butchers, as indicated by the fact I quoted his post.


 
Ah the quote didn't show up on my view, I think because I have butchers on ignore.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> About fucking brand. That's the publicity. Brand.



Oh jesus fucking christ, you are so shitting dead set on arguing with me every time I post that you don't even understand that I am 90% agreeing with you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Ah the quote didn't show up on my view, I think because I have butchers on ignore.


Lol i think the kids say.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> Oh jesus fucking christ, you are so shitting dead set against arguing with me every time I post that you don't even understand that I am 90% agreeing with you.


Why do you do this red-rage thing every time? It's ok for me to disagree with you on 10%.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Let's be clear here - brand is entering these pre-exisitng things _as a celeb_, as someone who will go on the tv with his arm around young girls, who will steal their air-time, who will take the words (and they've been brilliant words) out of their mouth and he is someone who takes it away from them. From a rooted spreading campaign that recognises where it's strengths lie - that is, in what it shares in common with people across the capital and the country and the recognition that we change things when we act together rather than elites imposing as they like - back to giving power to a celeb elite, back to _the image_, back to the media, tjhe same media that these clowns thinks directs and controls _the victims. _What a disgusting tawdry lash-up.



Nail on the head.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why do you do this red-rage thing every time? It's ok for me to disagree with you on 10%.



LOL you read it how you want, it's not red-rage - I'm just having a pleasant morning on the internet and having a debate.  Glad to know that you think people who disagree with you are having some sort of anger issue though.  Bit weird.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> LOL you read it how you want, it's not red-rage - I'm just having a pleasant morning on the internet and having a debate.  Glad to know that you think people who disagree with you are having some sort of anger issue though.  Bit weird.


Dead dead calm again aren't you. I envy you your calm.


----------



## co-op (Dec 3, 2014)

You're going into cult-leader mode.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Dead dead calm again aren't you. I envy you your calm.



Look, just admit that you hate it that I mostly stick to suburban and don't often stick my head into the politics forum - and whenever I do, you like to stamp on me full force.  The fact I don't come here often doesn't mean I'm apolitical, it means I can't be bothered with this sort of argumentative shite that changes nothing.  Yes, compared to you, I am the epitome of calm.


----------



## co-op (Dec 3, 2014)

If he announces he's taking a second wife, it's time to leave the commune.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> Look, just admit that you hate it that I mostly stick to suburban and don't often stick my head into the politics forum - and whenever I do, you like to stamp on me full force.  The fact I don't come here often doesn't mean I'm apolitical, it means I can't be bothered with this sort of argumentative shite that changes nothing.  Yes, compared to you, I am the epitome of calm.


I admit it. I "hate it that I mostly stick to suburban". Drives me potty it does. I pace the room for hours on end trying to entice you into different forums rather than barely even knowing who you are apart form that odd person who appears in a rage attacking me every so often.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I admit it. I "hate it that I mostly stick to suburban". Drives me potty it does. I pace the room for hours on end trying to entice you into different forums rather than barely even knowing who you are apart form that odd person who appears in a rage attacking me every so often.



Says the person who responds angrily to every post I ever make in the politics forum.  You're just being ridiculous at this point.  If anyone is appearing in a rage attacking someone, it is the other way around.  Not that it really bothers me, you are wasting your breath, and I am sitting here smiling.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> Says the person who responds angrily to every post I ever make in the politics forum.  You're just being ridiculous at this point.  If anyone is appearing in a rage attacking someone, it is the other way around.  Not that it really bothers me, you are wasting your breath, and I am sitting here smiling.


Apart from me reacting angrily to a single post you've made on this thread or as far as i can remember - ever anywhere.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from me reacting angrily to a single post you've made on this thread or as far as i can remember - ever anywhere.



Every post I've ever made in politics forum, you pop your head up and started some sort of row with me.
You couldn't have made your territory more clear if you'd pissed all over it like a tomcat.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> Every post I've ever made in politics forum, you pop your head up and started some sort of row with me.
> You couldn't have made your territory more clear if you'd pissed all over it like a tomcat.


i think you need to check the record. You've  form for this remember.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> i think you need to check the record. You've  form for this remember.



I've form for what?  Posting on the politics forum without prior permission?  Form for being followed around forums by you having a go at me?  Disagreeing about a film and being hounded by you about it? (Good example to pick btw, it shows how "well balanced" you are). You just don't like me because I argue back.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> I've form for what?  Posting on the politics forum without prior permission?  Form for being followed around forums by you having a go at me?  Disagreeing about a film and being hounded by you about it? (Good example to pick btw, it shows how "well balanced" you are). You just don't like me because I argue back.


Form for doing this going mental over nothing and starting fight then accusing me of starting a fight with you and some nonsense about a politics forum. It's really odd behaviour. I've other examples.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Form for doing this going mental over nothing and starting fight then accusing me of starting a fight with you and some nonsense about a politics forum. It's really odd behaviour. I've other examples.



Because you DO always start a fight with me.  Every fucking time I go into politics forum.  I can't post here and have a normal discussion with other members because you get fixated on grinding me into dust!  I have never come on here to have a row with you ever, but that is the way it ends up.  You are even looking into my posting history now... and that "example" that you posted wasn't a post here, it was a response to your girlfriend saying that I was acting a part when I said I couldn't put the heating on, when actually I can't fucking afford it and defended myself.  And yeah then I did get a bit angry, but poverty and being cold because you can't fucking afford to put the heating on does that to a person.  What in the FUCK is wrong with you.   Back to the subject of the thread, when was the last time you did anything to defend low-income housing?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> Because you DO always start a fight with me.  Every fucking time I go into politics forum.  I can't post here and have a normal discussion with other members because you get fixated on grinding me into dust!  I have never come on here to have a row with you ever, but that is the way it ends up.  You are even looking into my posting history now... and that "example" that you posted wasn't a post here, it was a response to your girlfriend saying that I was acting a part when I said I couldn't put the heating on, when actually I can't fucking afford it and defended myself.  And yeah then I did get a bit angry, but poverty and being cold because they can't fucking afford to put the heating on does that to a person.  What in the FUCK is wrong with you.   Back to the subject of the thread, when was the last time you did anything to defend low-income housing?


Wow, you're _really_ doing it again. And doing the same OTT reaction.

That's not the subject of the thread  - that's actually something related to a question that i asked about how much _more_ posters have done because of Brand's involvement in the New Era campaign. And to turn it into a competition of whose done more is to play the Brand game, it's to deflect attention away from any serious questions into moral competition.  For the record i've recently took part in a local campaign against profiteering lanlords whilst doing my best to circulate info about New Era and other related stuff (like poor doors - which i've attended). Do i win or do we both lose by this stupidity?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, you're _really_ doing it again. And doing the same OTT reaction.
> 
> That's not the subject of the thread  - that's actually something related to a question that i asked about how much _more_ posters have done because of Brand's involvement in the New Era campaign. And to turn it into a competition of whose done more is to play the Brand game, it's to deflect attention away from any serious questions into moral competition.  For the record i've recently took part in a local campaign against profiteering lanlords whilst doing my best to circulate info about New Era and other related stuff (like poor doors - which i've attended). Do i win or do we both lose by this stupidity?



The Acorn stuff is brilliant and led by some good people


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's great cheers. Any other trite sayings masquerading  as deep thought you want to bore us with?



That's my job, isn't it?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> Because you DO always start a fight with me.  Every fucking time I go into politics forum.  I can't post here and have a normal discussion with other members because you get fixated on grinding me into dust!  I have never come on here to have a row with you ever, but that is the way it ends up.  You are even looking into my posting history now... and that "example" that you posted wasn't a post here, it was a response to your girlfriend saying that I was acting a part when I said I couldn't put the heating on, when actually I can't fucking afford it and defended myself.  And yeah then I did get a bit angry, but poverty and being cold because you can't fucking afford to put the heating on does that to a person.  What in the FUCK is wrong with you.   Back to the subject of the thread, when was the last time you did anything to defend low-income housing?



Epona, it's not personal. Butchers can be cantankerous with everyone (sorry mate but y'know, you are). Get through that though and there's usually a good political point being made.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, you're _really_ doing it again. And doing the same OTT reaction.
> 
> That's not the subject of the thread  - that's actually something related to a question that i asked about how much _more_ posters have done because of Brand's involvement in the New Era campaign. And to turn it into a competition of whose done more is to play the Brand game, it's to deflect attention away from any serious questions into moral competition.  For the record i've recently took part in a local campaign against profiteering lanlords whilst doing my best to circulate info about New Era and other related stuff (like poor doors - which i've attended). Do i win or do we both lose by this stupidity?



I am not being OTT, I am just responding to you and your ridiculous posts.  As I do every time, I have no wish to be cowed into silence by anyone.  However - I am now fed up with being hounded by you every time I post on politics forum.  It will be a great relief to both of us I'm sure when I put you on ignore right after I finish this post.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Acorn stuff is brilliant and led by some good people


Lot of inner city and just outside areas ready for it.


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Epona, it's not personal. Butchers can be cantankerous with everyone (sorry mate but y'know, you are). Get through that though and there's usually a good political point being made.



I actually feel as though it has been personal for at least a year now, but thank you for trying to pour oil on the waters, I do appreciate it.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> I actually feel as though it has been personal for at least a year now, but thank you for trying to pour oil on the waters, I do appreciate it.



It's really not personal. He's actually a good bloke.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> I am not being OTT, I am just responding to you and your ridiculous posts.  As I do every time, I have no wish to be cowed into silence by anyone.  However - I am now fed up with being hounded by you every time I post on politics forum.  It will be a great relief to both of us I'm sure when I put you on ignore right after I finish this post.


I just linked to the last time two times i talked to you - both times went like this - you blowing up over nothing/being unable to take disagreement then some odd stuff about the politics forum. I haven't even talked to you in here for a decade probably. And that's what this is about - me telling you i didn't know who you are 10 fucking years ago


----------



## Epona (Dec 3, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> It's really not personal. He's actually a good bloke.



I know he is, he is a good bloke who got upset that I got in a brief argument on a thread with his partner, and defended her.  Good on him.  However, it's now gone on too long (that argument was this time last year).  This has gone on longer than my argument with his partner which was over in half an hour. I would be happy to bury the hatchet, but it doesn't seem possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Epona said:


> I know he is, he is a good bloke who got upset that I got in a brief argument on a thread with his partner, and defended her.  Good on him.  However, it's now gone on too long (that argument was this time last year).  This has gone on longer than my argument with his partner which was over in half an hour. I would be happy to bury the hatchet, but it doesn't seem possible.


I haven't even talked to you for as long as i can remember! 

Right, i'm ending this nonsense now. Time for a cuppa and some ginger nuts.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 3, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> On this thread no better strategies have been developed, no ideas have been put forward and the criticism which appears looks very much like sectarian ranting, (including a complaint that a Russell Brand video was posted in the Russell Brand thread, I shit you not).
> 
> Russell Brand supporting any campaign will garner more support and inspire more similiar campaigns than all the sectarian and self marginalized political groups have done in the last 30 years. He is being attacked by the right for taking a left wing stance. Is it the job of the left to attack him with the same arguments or would it be more constructive to build on the interest he is generating in these campaigns to help further them? After all he is reaching a wide audience.
> 
> ...




I hope you're reading Butcher's responses to this post. The ciriticisms I remember on this thread have been ones around how celebs (and more broadly, leaders) can detract from a movement by removing focus from the communities affected and onto themselves. Implicit within that criticism are ideas about a different strategy.

Why would someone criticising from the left use the same arguments as someone from the right? That doesn't make sense. 

Why focus so much on him? Well that's the problem isn't it. If his involvement in the campaigns brings benefits to that campaign, great, but mostly it becomes about Brand, not about the campaign - this isn't an issue with Brand, it's how the media works, anyone who put themselves in his position would have this. Do we want or need the media? I don't know about that, I think that you're generally better off trying to build and work outside of the media, so that whole thing doesn't get focussed on one person.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> The victory is that he has a voice, is using it, and people are listening.
> 
> Over a million people viewed the interview with Paxman on youtube.
> 
> You don't get that kind of attention unless you're saying things worth listening to, things nobody else has the balls to say.



Sure you do. You get that kind of attention if you're a celeb who does something even slightly controversial, because the media will pump it so hard that every fucker wonders "what did he say?". 
As for "nobody has the balls to say", what you mean is "people like Russell don't usually have the balls to say anything political", because us down here on the ground, at the grass roots, we've been speaking out for (in many cases) our entire adult lifetimes, and while Russell's "puffing" of various causes is nice for those causes, it's a distraction from the actual hard work of community organisation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I haven't even talked to you for as long as i can remember!
> 
> Right, i'm ending this nonsense now. Time for a cuppa and some ginger nuts.



Gingerist!!!


----------



## xenon (Dec 3, 2014)

Cheers for Acorn link. Didnt know of it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Gingerist!!!


 
He just can't help himself!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Because it has no relevance to what he's saying about real people suffering real oppression from the oligarchs who run the world without any restraint.



It has some relevance. People (rightly) tend to not trust a spokesman who cannot see things from their perspective, and while Mr. Brand can be a fine poverty tourist, drawing attention to injustice, he isn't one of us, and he isn't personally acquainted with the desperation of our position.
My great-grandad was railing against Lord & Lady Bountiful types over a century ago, and frankly that's what Russell Brand effectively is - a well-meaning rich person condescending to assist the little people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Do you know why thats so insulting of a post? It's because plenty of people have been saying things in a more cogent manner than Brand for generations and the fact that some comedian has suddenly said things you agree with in a shit and easily ridiculed manner does not equal a revelation for the class. I've had conversations in the smoke room at a warehouse job that gets his gist without the woo. Thats before we even get into how sexually dodgy he is.
> 
> Someone famous mentions the screamingly obvious class war and suddenly he is the messiah



And what really burns is that this is a "cause" that he can drop as quickly as a cheeky fart, so anyone putting faith in or relying on Brand as a messiah are making rods for their own backs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Sure, that's just how the oligarchs want us, whispering to each other in warehouses, unable to speak openly or be heard so that the whole world can hear the truth of what we're saying in our whispering rooms.
> 
> The importance of Russel Brand is that he's amplifying our voices.  He's said that's all he's doing.  He makes no claims to being the messiah.



He's not amplifying "Our voices", he's cherry-picking causes and issues, and then *mediating* the actual message. A message that generally doesn't need to be mediated.



> So just run along and whisper with your friends.  They've got you where they want you.



Interesting. You appear to hold brass tacks activism in contempt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

sim667 said:


> A lot of left wing types tend to be very quick to attack and very belittling if there's something they don't agree with.
> 
> Brand is making that side of politics more accessible, and in all honesty anyone who does that can only be a good thing imho.



Analyse the issues he's spoken out on. What he's basically done is present a media-friendly face for those issues to be publicised through. Sure, the publicity achieves *something*, but whether it actually renders politics more accessible or in fact distances people even further from local activism because Russell won't speak out on their behalf is a question to which we can't assume (as you appear to be doing) an answer.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 3, 2014)

Diana9,are you aware of the Jonathan ross radio episode? I don't assume you are, being in California. Look it up. Gives you some insight into the man behind the mask in front of the man


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It has some relevance. People (rightly) tend to not trust a spokesman who cannot see things from their perspective, and while Mr. Brand can be a fine poverty tourist, drawing attention to injustice, he isn't one of us, and he isn't personally acquainted with the desperation of our position.
> My great-grandad was railing against Lord & Lady Bountiful types over a century ago, and frankly that's what Russell Brand effectively is - a well-meaning rich person condescending to assist the little people.



tbf it has now moved to the stage where the issue is not without potential impact on him, who wants a tenant that causes your off shore tax arrangements to be in the national press? It the first real test of Brand the activist- if he can keep on message that the real story is 92 families evicted before Xmas,fair play to him.  if he uses to further Trews -main stream media is distorting bollocks, then fuck him coz we all knew that already.

That hatchet job was quite incredible really,i think  he might actually have some London journos worrying he could fuck their pension arrangements by helping pop the London house price bubble.  Seems more likely than taking their role as gatekeepers of public outrage more more seriously-  what next? Joanna Lumley eats at an Italian restaurant instead of Nepalese!


----------



## youngian (Dec 3, 2014)

There's a lot you can pull Brand up on but the Sun's hypocrite efforts are woeful. What infuriates Murdoch hacks is that his bank balance should make him one of them and therefore is a class traitor. A council house Kipper turning up to support the landlord however would get his own Danifesto in the Sun. Brand can talk a lot of nonsense but he admits himself he's finding his feet and fair play to him for putting his head above the trenches instead of eating kangaroo bollocks.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It has some relevance. People (rightly) tend to not trust a spokesman who cannot see things from their perspective, and while Mr. Brand can be a fine poverty tourist, drawing attention to injustice, he isn't one of us, and he isn't personally acquainted with the desperation of our position.
> My great-grandad was railing against Lord & Lady Bountiful types over a century ago, and frankly that's what Russell Brand effectively is - a *well-meaning rich person condescending to assist the little people*.



What? You mean like the entire membership of the SWP then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> What? You mean like the entire membership of the SWP then.



Pretty much!


----------



## Lea (Dec 3, 2014)

I see that Russell Brand won an award today:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...or-making-the-least-sense-of-all-9900350.html


----------



## D'wards (Dec 3, 2014)

This thread demonstrates why the far left will never achieve a sodding thing


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

D'wards said:


> This thread demonstrates why the far left will never achieve a sodding thing


Because people disagree on important things?


----------



## D'wards (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Because people disagree on important things?


 Because people disagree on everything


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

its follow the hippy or nothing. NOTHING.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

D'wards said:


> Because people disagree on everything


Let's pretend that they don't then. That'll work a treat.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its follow the hippy or nothing. NOTHING.


Indeed, a few people - the brand supporters on here esp - could do with getting out the door of a morning or after work to make their points real.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 3, 2014)

Have people on this thread read 'Revolution?'


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Here we go.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Have people on this thread read 'Revolution?'


have you?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> have you?



I'm 2/3 of the way through, he's getting into his manifesto now....


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I'm 2/3 of the way through, he's getting into his manifesto now....


grand. all manifestos should start 2/3 of the way through.


----------



## youngian (Dec 3, 2014)

D'wards said:


> This thread demonstrates why the far left will never achieve a sodding thing



I've never been described as far left before and you could even be moderate right of centre people and applaud Brand for getting up the noses of the talentless cunts that produce the Sun.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

youngian said:


> I've never been described as far left before and you could even be moderate right of centre people and applaud Brand for getting up the noses of the talentless cunts that produce the Sun.


He hasn't got up their noses you dope -  he's got on the front page. He's good for them. He could be doing some west ham shit.The point is _brand on the front page_. Do you really think the sun care about brand on this or new era that murdoch is threatened by this? That their journos are directly threatened? What a load of tosh.


----------



## youngian (Dec 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He hasn't got up their noses you dope -  he's got on the front page. He's good for them. He could be doing some west ham shit.The point is _brand on the front page_. Do you really think the sun care about brand on this or new era that murdoch is threatened by this? That their journos are directly threatened? What a load of tosh.


No-one said anything about Murdoch or his hacks feeling threatened you just plucked that out of the ether. My apologies to D'wards


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 3, 2014)

D'wards said:


> This thread demonstrates why the far left will never achieve a sodding thing


 yeah but you would say that as you are too rich/too poor/a prude/promiscuous/aren't one of us/speak funny/are on tv/aren't on tv/sell papers/don't sell papers/are in `the community`/aren't in `the community`...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

youngian said:


> No-one said anything about Murdoch or his hacks feeling threatened you just plucked that out of the ether. My apologies to D'wards


You did. No messing about.


----------



## treelover (Dec 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> View attachment 64513




He is obviously touching some nerves, and for that , its good.


----------



## treelover (Dec 3, 2014)

> That giff is so out of context!!!! Hes angry at the media from detracting from a fantastic cause but the giff makes him look like a violent madman. Trying to take down Brand in this manner wont work on Brandites, we seek the truth, we dont base our opinions on misleading snippets!



from the Indy comments, seems like there may now be 'Brandites', not a good development as I am sure Russell will agree.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 3, 2014)

I just got told off on twitter for criticising him and suggested I ask them if they think he hijacked the campaign 

Does anyone know what the new era campaign think?


----------



## Dan U (Dec 3, 2014)

He definitely has brandbots if not brandites as this thread shows. We have one ourselves


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2014)

Dan U said:


> I just got told off on twitter for criticising him and suggested I ask them if they think he hijacked the campaign
> 
> Does anyone know what the new era campaign think?


They love him - proper love him. But power works in hidden ways.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Red heat?
> OK! Comrade?
> Internationale enquirer?




A glossy quarterly from PD's press: Keeping Up With The Jones


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

D'wards said:


> This thread demonstrates why the far left will never achieve a sodding thing



Your post certainly demonstrates your inability to differentiate between splitting _a la_ The Judean Peoples' Front or the SWP, and people questioning Russell Brand's motivation and/or the effect he has on general politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Have people on this thread read 'Revolution?'



Yes. It's interesting, but as a text for a political philosophy it's about as solid as cotton wool. Half of it is semi-digested revolutionary politics, and the other half is whimsy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

treelover said:


> He is obviously touching some nerves, and for that , its good.



But he isn't.
He hasn't said anything much more contentious than "the system is shit" - as if most people weren't actually aware of that oh-so-obvious fact!
Yes, Mr. Brand may move a few apolitical people to think about politics, and he may (for his own benefit as well as theirs) publicise some causes, but what is he *achieving*, politically? He talks about how revolution is necessary, but he doesn't even try to enunciate any mechanisms through which people can bring about revolutionary change. He's insulated from the causes he supports, and from the people who are the beneficiaries of those causes. Getting photographed with your arm around a protester doesn't make you less insulated.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2014)

you get the impression some cartoon voice for workers, social, political rights. For real things- is indulged as an easy narrative but with easily dismissable ignorance and the problems with his integrity.

I'd be a right fucking liability to any left ish spokesmans role. It takes two wrong questions to get me ranting about salt mines and I certainly don't really mean that but i know how i can be goaded so would not get near a mike.

I've time for brands 'I'm learning'*. I know that one does wear thin when someone keeps fucking up but he's not ancient and he's not from a perspective where he has had to think on these things in depth
*We all are, but don't act like he's re invented communism ffs.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> But he isn't.
> He hasn't said anything much more contentious than "the system is shit" - as if most people weren't actually aware of that oh-so-obvious fact!
> Yes, Mr. Brand may move a few apolitical people to think about politics, and he may (for his own benefit as well as theirs) publicise some causes, but what is he *achieving*, politically? He talks about how revolution is necessary, but he doesn't even try to enunciate any mechanisms through which people can bring about revolutionary change. He's insulated from the causes he supports, and from the people who are the beneficiaries of those causes. Getting photographed with your arm around a protester doesn't make you less insulated.



to be fair vp, russell brand has said numerous times that he doesn't have the answers, he doesn't claim any of the things he says or does are his original ideas. what he does say is take direct action work together as communities peacefully within the system to achieve the common goals. even that is hardly original, but he is the first person i have seen in many years to say these things, things that are right, things that resonate with me and my values and to have media attention to do it.

i'm not as politically astute as many of the posters here so i kind of feel what am i missing that seems so painfully obvious to some on here, rb to me, seems genuine and sometimes talks a lot of sense. regarding rb's personality, i know a few recovering addicts and he really does remind me of some of the energetic driven addicts i know with lots of clean time.


----------



## gosub (Dec 4, 2014)




----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

I don't agree with RB all the time, but he's clearly getting up a lot of noses, which is no bad thing.

Some leftists complaint about him strike me as weird. He's managed to get a lot of folk, not normally that interested in politics, thinking about about fairly left wing stuff, far more than so many others ever managed to via festishised rhetoric, shouty slogans and dull meetings.

It's like "how dare he talk about E15 mums or Occupy on Newsnight. how dare he do a daily show ripping the piss out of reactionaries. He's not as perfect as ME It should be ME doing that. I am the MOST LEFTYIST OF THEM ALL."

And obviously, no one with any money should be left wing. Like engles, kropotkin, Benn etc. The rich are politically obliged to be right wing, and we have right wing media to back us up on that.

You know who's not a hypocrite, doesn't blur any anti establishment message or run any risk of mishandling a campaign like New Era? Katie Hopkins. Lets have more people like her. Fan fucking tastic. If we can't have impure people arguing a case like ours, lets just have the opposite case put the whole time.

It's as if some people would rather he was just a vapid celeb, giving interviews to OK about what clothes he likes or his love life,while the real political analysis is left to the grown ups who have strangely achieved next to no traction over the last couple of generations.

Yes, alot of what he says is obvious to many of us, rather empty in some ways and ego fuelled, but he's sincere enough and would admit all the above. A lot of the critique seems rather churlish.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 4, 2014)

gosub said:


>



fair play, I made it to 7 minutes and he's having a decent rant with some valid points.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 4, 2014)

Is he not just doing it because he loves to be seen, to be fashionable, to be feted? Why does he live in luxury when he can quite easily give all his absurd wealth to good causes?

It seems like bollocks. 

The system which gives everything to the few and nothing to the majority is the enemy of equality and of what is in the interests of the majority and fairness. All Brand has shown is that he has a big mouth, he hasn't sacrificed ANYTHING AT ALL.

In fact I think he is probably crackers. And he is not exactly a good example to the young. BTW I don't mean his drug problem but the whole Sachsgate shit.

Socialism is or should be very simple. Shelter the vulnerable and those in danger. Protect those who would be exploited by the extortioner. Support a politics which establishes principles of truth, good judgement and always persistent and hasty for justice.

I don't want to go on too much but while I am here: we are run by a bunch of ridiculous inadequates in suits who LIE to us.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 4, 2014)

look at it like this, if he gave all his wealth away, and i don't imagine he is that wealthy that he could feed, clothe and house all the poor, homeless and all the others that have fallen through the net. if he gave away all his wealth, a few thousand people would be safe for a few months (making these figures up, cos i have no idea how much money he has or how much it would take), then we'd all be back to square one and russell brand would be with us in the poverty. how would that make things better?

throwing money at the problem won't work in the long term. redistributing the money of one rich man, in this case russell brand, almost certainly wouldn't make any noticeable difference.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 4, 2014)

When I see the common man try to take down someone who speaks on behalf of the common man, all I can think is that centuries of indoctrination by the ruling elite still holds people mentally enslaved in the 21st century. 

Mind boggling.

"But before we change the world, we need to change the way we think." - Russell Brand, "We No Longer Have the Luxury of Tradition," The New Statesman


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> When I see the common man try to take down someone who speaks on behalf of the common man, all I can think is that centuries of indoctrination by the ruling elite still holds people mentally enslaved in the 21st century.
> 
> Mind boggling.
> 
> "But before we change the world, we need to change the way we think." - Russell Brand, "We No Longer Have the Luxury of Tradition," The New Statesman



Not sure if I'm this common man you speak of, I'm no celeb though, so I guess so.

I don't want or need someone to speak on behalf of me.

I never asked brand to speak on behalf of me.

Afaik brand doesn't say he speaks on my behalf but he must understand how the media works and whatever he says about not being leader/spokesperson that is how he'll be presented.

His voice - to some extent - takes away from my voice.

I want my voice to be heard, I want it to be my voice, and if practicality dictates I be represented, I want a direct part in choosing who represents me.

Does that help you understand?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Not sure if I'm this common man you speak of, I'm no celeb though, so I guess so.
> 
> I don't want or need someone to speak on behalf of me.
> 
> ...



So you want your voice to be heard.  How do you propose going about it?  I hate to shatter your illusions, but the common man doesn't have a voice, unless he can organize people _en mass_, and even then, millions of people marched to protest the Iraq war, nobody listened.  The reality is, the Sun speaks for you, the Daily Mail speaks for you. They do the bidding of the power elite to distract people with nonsense, like how much Russell Brand pays to rent his apartment.  They're just trying to stir up envy, and some people unfortunately fall for it because they don't even know themselves enough to know they are envious of celebrities and wealth. "Yeah, who does Russell Brand think he is to speak for me!  I can bloody well speak for myself!" And bam, they've got you just where they want you:  effectively silenced.   Basically it comes down to a hatchet job against anyone who deigns to speak for the public good and people need to learn to see through that and not be duped into working against each other.

If you don't need Russell Brand to speak for you, fine, but why begrudge him for lending his celebrity to the people of East London who need his voice to amplify their own?   Would anyone hear their plight if it wasn't for him? Hardly.

Let's not be naive and face reality.  Having a celebrity who does have a voice as an ally can help give the concerns of common people a larger hearing in the world. Unless you just don't care about their concerns.  In that case, you really don't have anything to say, do you.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

Lol. I'm going to respond to your post's content but I find it laughable that you are telling me to shut up, terrible sectarianism, be quiet little man the celeb is speaking yeah?

My voice gets heard fine in the projects and activities I'm involved in in my local community, along with the other people who are involved.

You can try to play their game if you want, I think their game is rigged and I'm going to play a different one.

Where have I begruged him getting involved? Here's a clue, I haven't, but here's some questions for you to think about why I have concerns about his involvement.

Why aren't their voices heard on their own? Could it be because of a celeb media led culture? How did this culture come to exist? How does it reproduce itself? Does brand's involvement on these campaigns as a self appointed celeb spokesperson help reproduce the celeb culture that means someone like brand is required? If you want to have out voices heard, shouldn't we lose the things that reproduce the culture that stop our voices being heard?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

Actually you can fuck right off with your last two lines, as if being critical of a tactic is indicative of not caring about someone else's concerns and you are on here banging on about how we musn't attack brand cos he's on our side then come out with that kind of stupid personal attack, take a look at yourself, I'm out of this conversation.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 4, 2014)

Shush prole.  Go back to your whispering room.

The 'common people,' lol.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Lol. I'm going to respond to your post's content but I find it laughable that you are telling me to shut up, terrible sectarianism, be quiet little man the celeb is speaking yeah?
> 
> My voice gets heard fine in the projects and activities I'm involved in in my local community, along with the other people who are involved.
> 
> ...



You're distorting what I said.  I didn't say "quiet little man," to you,  I said that the powers-that-be won't let you be heard. You can talk but you can't be heard.   That's their silencing scheme. 

Celebrities aren't supposed to be heard either.  They're telling RB "quiet little man."  Go back to shooting heroin and screwing women.  So for the "common man" to jump on their bandwagon and tell RB to shut up, "Shut UP Russell Brand, you don't speak for me!" is self-defeating, and that's exactly what they want.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Actually you can fuck right off with your last two lines, as if being critical of a tactic is indicative of not caring about someone else's concerns and you are on here banging on about how we musn't attack brand cos he's on our side then come out with that kind of stupid personal attack, take a look at yourself, I'm out of this conversation.



Bye.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> You're distorting what I said.  I didn't say "quiet little man," to you,  I said that the powers-that-be won't let you be heard. You can talk but you can't be heard.   That's their silencing scheme.
> 
> Celebrities aren't supposed to be heard either.  They're telling RB "quiet little man."  Go back to shooting heroin and screwing women.  So for the "common man" to jump on their bandwagon and tell RB to shut up, "Shut UP Russell Brand, you don't speak for me!" is self-defeating, and that's exactly what they want.



Lol


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 4, 2014)

The 'common man.' The Sun.

Sixth form common room, more like.  Is this the level we're at?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> When I see the common man try to take down someone who speaks on behalf of the common man, *all I can think is that centuries of indoctrination by the ruling elite still holds people mentally enslaved in the 21st century. *
> 
> Mind boggling.
> 
> "But before we change the world, we need to change the way we think." - Russell Brand, "We No Longer Have the Luxury of Tradition," The New Statesman



What's your opinion of the protocols of the elders of zion?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> What's your opinion of the protocols of the elders of zion?



How is your question relevant to the topic?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your post certainly demonstrates your inability to differentiate between splitting _a la_ The Judean Peoples' Front or the SWP, and people questioning Russell Brand's motivation and/or the effect he has on general politics.


Not sure the SWP is a good example here, especially considering what their recent split was over.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> How is your question relevant to the topic?



Going on about ruling elites brainwashing the masses and how we need a great leader to fight the cause of the common man


----------



## youngian (Dec 4, 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-just-revolting-hypocrite.html#ixzz3Kutpi2xQ


> * The TV tantrum that shows why 'revolutionary' Russell Brand is really just a revolting hypocrite *
> *By Piers Morgan for MailOnline*


Another reason why I'm warming to Russell Brand. I'm assuming if money bags Brand showed some empathy with those struggling by wearing a poppy or Pudsey bear t-shirt he wouldn't be a hypocrite in Morgan's eyes.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom said:


> My voice gets heard fine in the projects and activities I'm involved in in my local community, along with the other people who are involved.



for me, that is the common ground we all share, being active within our local communities, and that is what russell brand is advocating. you are already in that place, doing those things with other people. many of us aren't, what little i do, i do in almost isolation. very few hear my voice or are affected by my deeds. but i am not a leader, i'm not a good spokesperson. yet they are roles i have found myself in, albeit in a small way. i'm sure in time i will find a cause where i can be of use.

wanted to write more but have stuff to do.


----------



## D'wards (Dec 4, 2014)

The tone of the Mail article and comments is appalling. Its like saying "How DARE you donate to cancer research when you haven't even got cancer!"

I might do a bit of trolling there...


----------



## youngian (Dec 4, 2014)

D'wards said:


> The tone of the Mail article and comments is appalling. Its like saying "How DARE you donate to cancer research when you haven't even got cancer!"
> 
> I might do a bit of trolling there...


Mailwatch is a good forum for highlighting endless tabloid cant 
http://mailwatch.co.uk


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 4, 2014)

I think last nights exchanges demonstrate the poison that allowing or fostering celeb-culture in our organising and our networks will bring with it. A leader with infatuated followers protecting him (and it will be a him) by shutting down criticism, by hunting down dissidents, by insisting that difference of opinion is malevolent, psychopathic or who knows...put there by our opponents. And then the leader gets bored and the followers move onto the next messiah leaving a hollowed out fractured and internally destroyed organisation/campaign. 

Celeb-COINTELPRO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I don't agree with RB all the time, but he's clearly getting up a lot of noses, which is no bad thing.
> 
> Some leftists complaint about him strike me as weird. He's managed to get a lot of folk, not normally that interested in politics, thinking about about fairly left wing stuff, far more than so many others ever managed to via festishised rhetoric, shouty slogans and dull meetings.
> 
> ...



It's always interesting to see how widely you miss the mark. Amusing, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Is he not just doing it because he loves to be seen, to be fashionable, to be feted? Why does he live in luxury when he can quite easily give all his absurd wealth to good causes?
> 
> It seems like bollocks.
> 
> ...



I'm sure Mr. Brand is sincere, and I'm sure he believes in his politics. I don't think he should be castigated for opening his gob and using his status. I *do* think that he should worry long and hard before doing so, in order to make sure that his promotion of a cause DOES actually promote that cause, and not just himself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> When I see the common man try to take down someone who speaks on behalf of the common man, all I can think is that centuries of indoctrination by the ruling elite still holds people mentally enslaved in the 21st century.
> 
> Mind boggling.
> 
> "But before we change the world, we need to change the way we think." - Russell Brand, "We No Longer Have the Luxury of Tradition," The New Statesman



How many of the common herd have requested that Russell Brand speak for us, hmm? It seems to me that what you're saying is "be grateful that this great man is willing to speak for you, peasants". Well I'm *not* grateful. I don't need a Lord or Lady Bountiful to do my thinking or my activism for me. I don't need some top-down pseudo-revolutionist putting words in my mouth.

Shame on you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Not sure if I'm this common man you speak of, I'm no celeb though, so I guess so.
> 
> I don't want or need someone to speak on behalf of me.
> 
> ...



It won't. The poster can't see beyond the messiah suffering for our sins. It's nauseating.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 4, 2014)

Raoul Vaneigem said:
			
		

> "The ideological spectacle keeps up with the times by bringing out harmless plastic antagonisms; are you for or against Brigitte Bardot, the Beatles, mini-cars, hippies, nationalization, spaghetti, old people, the TUC, mini-skirts, pop art, thermonuclear war, hitch-hiking? There is no one who is not accosted at every moment of the day by posters, news flashes, stereotypes, summoned to take sides over each of the prefabricated trifles that conscientiously stop up all the sources of everyday creativity."



I'm just gonna leave this here.

*slowly walks backwards out of the thread*


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 4, 2014)

Most of the 'non political' people i know either don't care or think he is a bit of a joke. 

It seems to be mostly overexcited lefties and trots who like Russell Brand


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

Mungy said:


> for me, that is the common ground we all share, being active within our local communities, and that is what russell brand is advocating. you are already in that place, doing those things with other people. many of us aren't, what little i do, i do in almost isolation. very few hear my voice or are affected by my deeds. but i am not a leader, i'm not a good spokesperson. yet they are roles i have found myself in, albeit in a small way. i'm sure in time i will find a cause where i can be of use.
> 
> wanted to write more but have stuff to do.



I'd like to hear more when you have time  

For the stuff I'm involved in at the moment, I just can't see how having a celeb involved would be of any use (another pair of hands is always welcome, but not the celeb bit of it). One is getting people to apply for a free bike on the Big Birmingham Bike scheme, which I'm then going to get to refugees who don't happen to live in the right area or don't have legal status so can't get the leisure card they need to apply, working with ASIRT (an independent refugee advice service). Because I'm part of the BIrmingham cycling community, and because ASIRT is part of the migrant community, we don't need someone like brand to amplify our voice because we can speak directly to everyone we need to.

The other is Birmingham Claimant's Union which we setup in the wake of the closure of Birmingham Law Centre and branches of the CAB, to provide informal advice and support for claimants. We get in touch with claimants by being outside of job centres and ATOS testing centre with leaflets and info. In this situation it's vital that the people who are doing it are claimants or deeply connected with the benefits system (couple of legal and cab type advisors in the group, plus a few like me who are no longer claimants but still support the group). Someone like brand just wouldn't be useful.

I can see how if you are isolated/feel isolated, seeing brand talking this stuff up is great because you feel less isolated, but the problem I see with him talking about community based bottom up organising, is that it is in the nature of being a media-driven celeb to create something that is top-down great individual organising, you'd need someone with almost no ego to not have them/their image taken up as the image/person of the campaign, detracting from bottom up organising, and that's definitely not brand - or any other celeb really, you must need a proper ego to get yourself into that kind of place.

For the stuff I'm involved with, I think it would be damaging tbh. If the council got wind of our plans for the bikes and could stop it, they would, and I've already outlined why I think a celeb involvement would be damaging to the claimant's union. In general, what Butcher's has said and my paragraph above.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 4, 2014)

Does anyone really think he is "the messiah"? 
I can't say I've read anything he's written but is he really that important? So much so that he should remain quiet at the request of `activists`?
He was into all the protest whatsit back in the day.

I think maybe we should email Chomsky so he can decide for us


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think last nights exchanges demonstrate the poison that allowing or fostering celeb-culture in our organising and our networks will bring with it. A leader with infatuated followers protecting him (and it will be a him) by shutting down criticism, by hunting down dissidents, by insisting that difference of opinion is malevolent, psychopathic or who knows...put there by our opponents. And then the leader gets bored and the followers move onto the next messiah leaving a hollowed out fractured and internally destroyed organisation/campaign.
> 
> Celeb-COINTELPRO.



Are you comparing Brand to the Black Panthers and the murder of activists like Hampton by the US state?


----------



## Mungy (Dec 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think last nights exchanges demonstrate the poison that allowing or fostering celeb-culture in our organising and our networks will bring with it. A leader with infatuated followers protecting him (and it will be a him) by shutting down criticism, by hunting down dissidents, by insisting that difference of opinion is malevolent, psychopathic or who knows...put there by our opponents. And then the leader gets bored and the followers move onto the next messiah leaving a hollowed out fractured and internally destroyed organisation/campaign.
> 
> Celeb-COINTELPRO.


When any strong personality leaves a group, it leaves a void, whether they are a sleb or not. I guess the important difference though is those with an invested interest, those would will be directly affected by being made homeless, or further impoverished can't retreat when they don't want to do it anymore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> So you want your voice to be heard.  How do you propose going about it?  I hate to shatter your illusions, but the common man doesn't have a voice, unless he can organize people _en mass_, and even then, millions of people marched to protest the Iraq war, nobody listened.



And all the other times, when mass protest *has* worked? If you're female (or indeed a Norfolk schoolmaster for that matter), you only have a vote because of mass protest, and *not* mass protest led by someone with the surname Pankhurst, but led by "the common woman".  



> The reality is, the Sun speaks for you, the Daily Mail speaks for you. They do the bidding of the power elite to distract people with nonsense, like how much Russell Brand pays to rent his apartment.  They're just trying to stir up envy, and some people unfortunately fall for it because they don't even know themselves enough to know they are envious of celebrities and wealth. "Yeah, who does Russell Brand think he is to speak for me!  I can bloody well speak for myself!" And bam, they've got you just where they want you:  effectively silenced.   Basically it comes down to a hatchet job against anyone who deigns to speak for the public good and people need to learn to see through that and not be duped into working against each other.



And of course, we blind foolish peasants don't have the ability to "read between the lines", so we need Russy-wussy to mediate our rage for us. Fuck off.



> If you don't need Russell Brand to speak for you, fine, but why begrudge him for lending his celebrity to the people of East London who need his voice to amplify their own?   Would anyone hear their plight if it wasn't for him? Hardly.
> 
> Let's not be naive and face reality.  Having a celebrity who does have a voice as an ally can help give the concerns of common people a larger hearing in the world. Unless you just don't care about their concerns.  In that case, you really don't have anything to say, do you.



What a creep you are. Most of those concerns outlive the celebrities riding them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Shush prole.  Go back to your whispering room.
> 
> The 'common people,' lol.



It'd be hilarious if it weren't so insulting.


----------



## D'wards (Dec 4, 2014)

Patronising team-building training lesson one


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Does anyone really think he is "the messiah"?
> I can't say I've read anything he's written but is he really that important? So much so that he should remain quiet at the request of `activists`?
> He was into all the protest whatsit back in the day.
> 
> I think maybe we should email Chomsky so he can decide for us



I think you should mail yourself to Chomsky, given how often you mention him. Preferably in an airtight box.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

Mungy said:


> When any strong personality leaves a group, it leaves a void, whether they are a sleb or not. I guess the important difference though is those with an invested interest, those would will be directly affected by being made homeless, or further impoverished can't retreat when they don't want to do it anymore.



That's pretty much the crux of it. Greebo and I do various local stuff because if we don't, we have no-one to blame but ourselves, and helping our community (either local or on-line) achieves something solid. We don't have the "luxury" of being able to retreat from activism, because *everyone* is important in a community, and everything we do for each other is important. Having celebrity support would bring transient attention to local causes, but then surely the drop-off of attention post-celebrity is all the steeper?  I'm not saying celebs shouldn't become involved, I'm saying they should subordinate their status to the community, *not* act to speak FOR that community. Butchers made a very good point yesterday when he mentioned that (probably unintentionally) Brand had partially disempowered the women from E15.


----------



## rekil (Dec 4, 2014)

copliker said:


> MeMeMeMe
> 
> We've already got an EXCLUSIVE report on Laurie's hailing of siegheiling Weev's release from chokey.


We're backing this up with a sensational double page spread on this.



Spoiler: #activism hot butter banter romance in the air?


----------



## Mungy (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I can see how if you are isolated/feel isolated, seeing brand talking this stuff up is great because you feel less isolated, but the problem I see with him talking about community based bottom up organising, is that it is in the nature of being a media-driven celeb to create something that is top-down great individual organising, you'd need someone with almost no ego to not have them/their image taken up as the image/person of the campaign, detracting from bottom up organising, and that's definitely not brand - or any other celeb really, you must need a proper ego to get yourself into that kind of place.



I have long held thoughts of community and working together as co-operatives, but it all feels so fragile, people want, but they don't want to put the spadework in. I'm a follower, not a leader. I'll do what needs to be done but I can't do the speaking to people and bringing them around and into the fold - that's not exactly what i want to say, but really can't find another way to say it. For me, someone like russell brand, I mean in personality and not necessarily status, can be a good thing. But that is perceived through my lack of confidence, so I'm aware how that might affect my perception. Human relationships are bloody complicated.


----------



## treelover (Dec 4, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Is he not just doing it because he loves to be seen, to be fashionable, to be feted? Why does he live in luxury when he can quite easily give all his absurd wealth to good causes?
> 
> It seems like bollocks.
> 
> ...




he is spending a good portion of his time in these damp dour winter months(when he could be in LA, etc) propelling himself across London to various govt buildings, social/council estates, etc, often early in the morning, that's something...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's always interesting to see how widely you miss the mark. Amusing, too.



OK, what mark have I missed? Seriously. Lots of points have been made for and against him on here. What cogent ones have I ignored, and how do they defeat a central thesis that he has done more harm than good of late?


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2014)

This thread really depresses me. I don't see RB as the messiah but I think he's making an effort to highlight problems that are often dismissed or conveniently ignored by the media/politicans alike. He's trying to make a difference & because his profile is larger than any of us here, he's in the spotlight. Why is this a bad thing?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's pretty much the crux of it. Greebo and I do various local stuff because if we don't, we have no-one to blame but ourselves, and helping our community (either local or on-line) achieves something solid. We don't have the "luxury" of being able to retreat from activism, because *everyone* is important in a community, and everything we do for each other is important. Having celebrity support would bring transient attention to local causes, but then surely the drop-off of attention post-celebrity is all the steeper?  I'm not saying celebs shouldn't become involved, I'm saying they should subordinate their status to the community, *not* act to speak FOR that community. Butchers made a very good point yesterday when he mentioned that (probably unintentionally) Brand had partially disempowered the women from E15.



Isn't it then a case of how things are managed, by campaign and sleb, rather than a sincere sleb just being told "ooooh...we don't want your help ta, because you're famous..."

In relation to E15 he seems, at least to be committed to it longer term because of his connection to the area. He's talked about the bailiffs being at his door as a youngster, which again I believe. Is he the wrong sort of working class? Should he have turned down the Hollywood work? It's hard to know.

I can imagine that it could create awkward, or worse, dynamics in the group, but again it's a question of honesty and management and hopefully lessons could be learned for future instances.

He gave publicity to the firefighters, whose union obviously sustained stuff before, during and after. I can't see how that could be over problematic.

Again, you have to wonder if people would prefer if he did fuck all except be a good little sleb. Perhaps he should be developing an after shave range, so that less people here will sneer at him. He's going on about people self organising and offering himself where people might think he could be useful. From knowledge of what he's done in the past (from "Naziboy to the drug hearings) I basically think he's sincere, and that positive gestures should be taken in a positive spirit.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> When I see the common man try to take down someone who speaks on behalf of the common man, all I can think is that centuries of indoctrination by the ruling elite still holds people mentally enslaved in the 21st century.
> 
> Mind boggling.
> 
> "But before we change the world, we need to change the way we think." - Russell Brand, "We No Longer Have the Luxury of Tradition," The New Statesman



There's a ruling elite here on urban, Diana. One that forever snarls, bites and berates any signs of populism on the left, or any dissenting opinion. It maintains the status quo and the pecking order here.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Why is this a bad thing?



Becuase he hasn't read "The Big Book Of How To Be An Unimpeachable Activist"? (available from inside some people's heads)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

"One that forever snarls, bites and berates any signs of populism on the left, or any dissenting opinion."



Wait up..."populism"!?

You don't want people LIKING our ideas do you?


----------



## treelover (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> So you want your voice to be heard.  How do you propose going about it?  I hate to shatter your illusions, but the common man doesn't have a voice, unless he can organize people _en mass_, and even then, millions of people marched to protest the Iraq war, nobody listened.  The reality is, the Sun speaks for you, the Daily Mail speaks for you. They do the bidding of the power elite to distract people with nonsense, like how much Russell Brand pays to rent his apartment.  They're just trying to stir up envy, and some people unfortunately fall for it because they don't even know themselves enough to know they are envious of celebrities and wealth. "Yeah, who does Russell Brand think he is to speak for me!  I can bloody well speak for myself!" And bam, they've got you just where they want you:  effectively silenced.   Basically it comes down to a hatchet job against anyone who deigns to speak for the public good and people need to learn to see through that and not be duped into working against each other.
> 
> If you don't need Russell Brand to speak for you, fine, but why begrudge him for lending his celebrity to the people of East London who need his voice to amplify their own?   Would anyone hear their plight if it wasn't for him? Hardly.
> 
> *Let's not be naive and face reality.  Having a celebrity who does have a voice as an ally can help give the concerns of common people a larger hearing in the world. Unless you just don't care about their concerns.  In that case, you really don't have anything to say, do you.*



Totally out of order there, don't assume that because posters don't agree with you or Brand and his actions they don't do good stuff, BT doesn't need defending, but he does excellent work


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> This thread really depresses me. I don't see RB as the messiah but I think he's making an effort to highlight problems that are often dismissed or conveniently ignored by the media/politicans alike. He's trying to make a difference & because his profile is larger than any of us here, he's in the spotlight. Why is this a bad thing?



No-one is saying it's a bad thing _per se_, they're saying that the way it is *currently* being represented (by the media, and by the poster Diana9 ) detracts from the cause in favour of concentrating on Russell Brand.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> There's a ruling elite here on urban, Diana. One that forever snarls, bites and berates any signs of populism on the left, or any dissenting opinion. It maintains the status quo and the pecking order here.



Conversely, there isn't, and you've created the idea of one in order to excuse your own inability to argue coherently, preferring to dissolve into hissy fits.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> If you don't need Russell Brand to speak for you, fine, but why begrudge him for lending his celebrity to the people of East London who need his voice to amplify their own?   Would anyone hear their plight if it wasn't for him? Hardly.



Actually, Focus E15 were doing pretty well and had already gained plenty of exposure even before Brand jumped in.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 4, 2014)

I'd like to know how close Russell Brand's flat is to the New Era estate.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that I know which building it's in and, if that is the case, that would make him a very near neighbour of the residents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Isn't it then a case of how things are managed, by campaign and sleb, rather than a sincere sleb just being told "ooooh...we don't want your help ta, because you're famous..."
> 
> In relation to E15 he seems, at least to be committed to it longer term because of his connection to the area. He's talked about the bailiffs being at his door as a youngster, which again I believe. Is he the wrong sort of working class? Should he have turned down the Hollywood work? It's hard to know.
> 
> ...



It's not about which class Russell Brand resides in. It isn't about his wealth, or his distance from or proximity to a cause. It's about how he, as someone who is a celebrity, will *affect* any cause(s) he supports - how his presence might undermine an already-coherent narrative, and how his presence, while bringing attention from the media, might bring attention focused primarily on him, and not on the cause(s).  This is stuff that a lot of activists do as a matter of course - you cross-check to make sure you're not pissing over someone else's shoulder - but which doesn't appear to have been done by Brand or his "people".


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 4, 2014)

...


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's pretty much the crux of it. Greebo and I do various local stuff because if we don't, we have no-one to blame but ourselves, and helping our community (either local or on-line) achieves something solid. We don't have the "luxury" of being able to retreat from activism, because *everyone* is important in a community, and everything we do for each other is important. Having celebrity support would bring transient attention to local causes, but then surely the drop-off of attention post-celebrity is all the steeper?  I'm not saying celebs shouldn't become involved, I'm saying they should subordinate their status to the community, *not* act to speak FOR that community. Butchers made a very good point yesterday when he mentioned that (probably unintentionally) Brand had partially disempowered the women from E15.



Yes, it's a very fair set of points you make.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "One that forever snarls, bites and berates any signs of populism on the left, or any dissenting opinion."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you need to resolve what is meant politically with regard to populism. Generally, in politics, it means "lowest common denominator mass appeal". Now frankly I'm a bit more ambitious for my fellow humans than settling for the lowest common denominator. I think we deserve better than settling for crumbs. Look behind most populist politics and all you see is a mechanism for the powerful to retain power, while blagging part of the electorate that they're going to change shit. It never fucking happens.
A couple of examples of populist policy off the top of my head:
Lib-Dems - "we'll keep higher education cheap/free".
Labour - "we'll repeal the JSA"
Tories - "we'll ring-fence NHS spending".


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not about which class Russell Brand resides in. It isn't about his wealth, or his distance from or proximity to a cause. It's about how he, as someone who is a celebrity, will *affect* any cause(s) he supports - how his presence might undermine an already-coherent narrative, and how his presence, while bringing attention from the media, might bring attention focused primarily on him, and not on the cause(s).  This is stuff that a lot of activists do as a matter of course - you cross-check to make sure you're not pissing over someone else's shoulder - but which doesn't appear to have been done by Brand or his "people".




There's a lot of "mights" in there. I agree that the cross checking is a good idea. How do we know it hasn't happened, even if not as best as it might have been? Clearly there could be downsides, but they'd have to be offset against good sides as well.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you need to resolve what is meant politically with regard to populism. Generally, in politics, it means "lowest common denominator mass appeal". Now frankly I'm a bit more ambitious for my fellow humans than settling for the lowest common denominator. I think we deserve better than settling for crumbs. Look behind most populist politics and all you see is a mechanism for the powerful to retain power, while blagging part of the electorate that they're going to change shit. It never fucking happens.
> A couple of examples of populist policy off the top of my head:
> Lib-Dems - "we'll keep higher education cheap/free".
> Labour - "we'll repeal the JSA"
> Tories - "we'll ring-fence NHS spending".




Point taken, but your beef seems to be with politicians not being consistent, rather than the populism in the first place. 

Often the issues can blur of course, when politicians knowingly promise something they may well struggle to deliver.

But "populism" is not, IMO at least, a bad thing of itself.

There is indeed a lot of "lowest common demoniator" stuff that goes on, but to highlight that can just as easily summon an accusation of "snobbery".


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Conversely, there isn't, and you've created the idea of one in order to excuse your own inability to argue coherently, preferring to dissolve into hissy fits.



I'm offering my opinion on the way dissent or going against the urban grain is dealt with by a select few here. No hissy fits. Brand seems to me to have a broad appeal to those of us who want change but haven't the entire history of political discourse and knowledge stored in our brains.

The thing that I find attractive about his approach is that (I find) he doesn't condescend like a few here.

IMHO.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 4, 2014)

When I was a kid a few weeks ago plenty of 'popular/well known' people spoke about politics/went on demos/did campaigning and it wasn't really that exceptional.
I remember the lead singer of a band around 1981ish saying she supported the Birmingham pub bombings. That shit would get you locked up now. Paul Weller was one, Don Letts.
Don't quite get why Brand is such a big topic one way or the other, but I guess it's because he's mainstream right? And is not very shy at coming forward.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm offering my opinion on the way dissent or going against the urban grain is dealt with by a select few here. No hissy fits. Brand seems to me to have a broad appeal to those of us who want change but haven't the entire history of political discourse and knowledge stored in our brains.
> 
> The thing that I find attractive about his approach is that (I find) he doesn't condescend like a few here.
> 
> IMHO.



It's not about having loads of knowledge stored in your brain.
It's about doing it yourself, and not relying on someone else to lead the way for you (invariably those who want to lead are a bunch of scrotes). We need no G-ds, and we need no masters. Yes, having Brand enunciate what you're thinking feels good, and *perhaps* furthers "the cause", but we shouldn't be depending on (or even desiring, in my opinion) other people to do that for us, as it takes away our ability to manouvre within that cause.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> When I was a kid a few weeks ago plenty of 'popular/well known' people spoke about politics/went on demos/did campaigning and it wasn't really that exceptional.
> I remember the lead singer of a band around 1981ish saying she supported the Birmingham pub bombings. That shit would get you locked up now. Paul Weller was one, Don Letts.
> Don't quite get why Brand is such a big topic one way or the other, but I guess it's because he's mainstream right? And is not very shy at coming forward.



Look at music and art over the last 30 years. It's incredibly de-politicised in comparison to what it was. Brand is a big topic simply because his stance stands out among the apolitical position so many of his contemporaries choose to take.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not about having loads of knowledge stored in your brain.
> (invariably those who want to lead are a bunch of scrotes). _We need no G-ds, and we need no masters._ Yes, having Brand enunciate what you're thinking feels good, and *perhaps* furthers "the cause", but we shouldn't be depending on (or even desiring, in my opinion) other people to do that for us, as it takes away our ability to manouvre within that cause.






Has anyone said they depend on Brand or people like him?

If not, why suppose they do?

From what I can gather, Brand would agree with the bits I put in italics (ETA, I'm shit with formatting, but I'm talking about much of the early part of your post after 1st sentence)

I really don't get that, should a famous person help a cause, why they should be seen as any kind of leader by themselves or the group.

Surely, an anarchist perspective would allow us to rise above that kind of thing rather then be perpetually hung up about it.

People offer different stuff to campaigns, the media potential of a sleb is just one of many things contributed by a host of people.

Why are people supposing the worst, imposing their own interpretations and guesses regarding motive to those who think that what Brand is, on balance, pretty good?

He didn't / doesn't lead any Fire Brigade campaigns, the E15 mums, attacks on FOX or anything else I'm aware of.

I don't see him as any kind of leader, that would be daft. Perhaps some do, but many don't. To assume people do is certainly unfair, quite possibly patronising and (ironically) risks imposing a judgement of a hierarchy where there isn't one.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Has anyone said they depend on Brand or people like him?
> 
> If not, why suppose they do?
> 
> ...



Diana said that without Brand the common people wouldn't have a voice, I read that as her seeing us as being dependent on him for a campaign to be successful.

Someone famous will pretty much automatically be placed in the position of a leader by the press and therefore the perception of people outside the group will be of that person as a leader. A famous person without an ego might forego that press attention in order to just get on with supporting the group, but Brand definitely isn't doing this, and as I said in a previous post I reckon that for anyone to get in the position of being a celeb they must have an ego, and that celebs generally love press attention so they will go for it. Whether they want to be a leader or not, whether they are actually leading a group, is irrelevant, because they will be seen to be a leader having been put in that position by the press.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Look at music and art over the last 30 years. It's incredibly de-politicised in comparison to what it was. Brand is a big topic simply because his stance stands out among the apolitical position so many of his contemporaries choose to take.



TBH, we're quite lucky not to have a new generation of the Sting/Bono types.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 4, 2014)

The protest was picking up, clear cut and building momentum. Daft lad and the circus show up and then it's all about him and I know he's saying it's not about him but fuck it, even if it comes good they don't care about losing once here or there. They're laughing. And then it's history. The real problem is we don't have enough celebrities to champion every cause. if only Jordan and Peter Andre hadn't split up.


----------



## andysays (Dec 4, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> So you want your voice to be heard.  How do you propose going about it?  I hate to shatter your illusions, but the common man doesn't have a voice...



He came from Essex he had a thirst for revolution
He thought that getting on Newsnight to speak to Paxman and plug his book was the solution, that's when he caught everyone's eye.
He told me that he was fucking loaded
I said in that case you probably aren't the best spokesperson for a campaign protesting the increase in rents on New Era housing estate*
He said fine but in thirty seconds time he said, I want to speak for common people
I want to do whatever common people do, I want to speak for common people
I want to speak for common people like you.
Well what else could I do - I said I'll see what I can do.

* this line doesn't really scan or rhyme, I'm afraid - obviously needs a *BIG NAME CELEBRITY* writer to work on it a bit...



> ...If you don't need Russell Brand to speak for you, fine, but why begrudge him for lending his celebrity to the people of East London who need his voice to amplify their own?   Would anyone hear their plight if it wasn't for him? Hardly.
> 
> Let's not be naive and face reality.  Having a celebrity who does have a voice as an ally can help give the concerns of common people a larger hearing in the world...



The problem is, even if RB has the best of intentions, even if he simply wants to amplify the voices of the people of East London and/or help give the concerns of "common people" a larger hearing in the world, any publicity he gains won't be simple publicity for our concerns or our cause, it will be mediated through the spectrum of celebrity - he will be the story, whether he wants it or not, whether he (or his acolytes such as yourself) realises it or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Has anyone said they depend on Brand or people like him?
> 
> If not, why suppose they do?



You miss the point. It's not whether people *do* depend, it's about coming to depend on them, even a little.



> From what I can gather, Brand would agree with the bits I put in italics (ETA, I'm shit with formatting, but I'm talking about much of the early part of your post after 1st sentence)
> 
> I really don't get that, should a famous person help a cause, why they should be seen as any kind of leader by themselves or the group.
> 
> Surely, an anarchist perspective would allow us to rise above that kind of thing rather then be perpetually hung up about it.



Again, it's not about them being seen as a leader by themselves or the cause, it's about (as proven by the publicity around Brand) how they're *represented* as such in the media.



> People offer different stuff to campaigns, the media potential of a sleb is just one of many things contributed by a host of people.
> 
> Why are people supposing the worst, imposing their own interpretations and guesses regarding motive to those who think that what Brand is, on balance, pretty good?



It appears that you're not really reading the thread, as most people, even those being negative about Brand's presence and his stance, haven't attributed motives to him beyond "he's trying to do the right thing". The criticism is about how it is done, and the effect that what is done has.



> He didn't / doesn't lead any Fire Brigade campaigns, the E15 mums, attacks on FOX or anything else I'm aware of.
> 
> I don't see him as any kind of leader, that would be daft. Perhaps some do, but many don't. To assume people do is certainly unfair, quite possibly patronising and (ironically) risks imposing a judgement of a hierarchy where there isn't one.



As I said, you entirely missed the point.  When we hear about, for example, the E15 women, what does the news-viewing public immediately think of? It's not of gallant single mums fighting for their community, it's the (media-elected) figurehead Russell Brand.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2014)

I heard an extended version of that the other day, live recording. He hits the final extra lyric 'you'll never know how it feels to live your life with no meaning or control'. Ouch.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

double post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> TBH, we're quite lucky not to have a new generation of the Sting/Bono types.



I was thinking more of The Clash and Crass.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I heard an extended version of that the other day, live recording. He hits the final extra lyric 'you'll never know how it feels to live your life with no meaning or control'. Ouch.



That line's in the album version isn't it? Continues like this:

"and with nowhere else to go
you are afraid that they exist
and something something
something makes you wonder why (?)

you wanna be like common people..."

I'm going to have to listen to it now 

edit: it's on my album version anyway, and she's not afraid, she's amazed 
("that they burn so bright whilst you can only wonder why" was the last two lines of the stanza, then into the shop above a flat bit before the you'll never understand version of the common people chorus.)


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I was thinking more of The Clash and Crass.




braintax, proff green, braintax.

its hip-hop where the bite is today


----------



## andysays (Dec 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I heard an extended version of that the other day, live recording. He hits the final extra lyric 'you'll never know how it feels to live your life with no meaning or control'. Ouch.



But he didn't understand, he just smiled and went on being Russell Brand...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> braintax, proff green, braintax.
> 
> its hip-hop where the bite is today



I was talking about the olden days, lad!


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Look at music and art over the last 30 years. It's incredibly de-politicised in comparison to what it was. Brand is a big topic simply because his stance stands out among the apolitical position so many of his contemporaries choose to take.


That isn't Brand's fault though - and no you weren't saying that I know. 

What about Naismith at Everton? Helping out a few folks here and there. I mean yeah he hasn't funded X Y or Z, he hasn't caused A or B to happen but at least he's having a little shuffle.

I refer to my earlier analogy about Tim Henman. Don't hate the Henman, hate the not-even-Henmans.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2014)

are you saying hate the game not the playa?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> braintax, proff green, braintax.
> 
> its hip-hop where the bite is today



Lowkey (conspiraloon unfortunately but soundtrack to the struggle is a supreme album), Immortal Technique, Mos Def, Akala... 

Not heard of Braintax... off to youtube, cheers (or not, we'll see  )


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2014)

he's in the vein of plan b

convinced me that people from leeds can rap, even though you wouldn't credit such a thing


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2014)

try 'The beast is us'

BigTom


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

listening to All I Need atm, nice, will go for The Beast Is Us next - see one of the youtube vids has thatcher in it's thumbnail so that's  from me


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom and DotCom I started a thread about nu skool rappers, please go there/contribute: 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/nu-skool-rappers-youre-feeling.327794/


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> are you saying hate the game not the playa?


Only while you're reaching for the rainbow.


----------



## rekil (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Lowkey (conspiraloon unfortunately but soundtrack to the struggle is a supreme album), Immortal Technique, Mos Def, Akala...
> 
> Not heard of Braintax... off to youtube, cheers (or not, we'll see  )


Mr.Technique is also a massive conspiraloon.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

copliker said:


> Mr.Technique is also a massive conspiraloon.



 I thought he might be but couldn't remember for sure.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2014)

theres quite a few hip hop conspiraloons aren't there? can't recall the name of the artist who turned up at occupy ny giving it full loon. _Rothschilds_, the works


----------



## rekil (Dec 4, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I thought he might be but couldn't remember for sure.


The first tune I googled


> You think illuminati's just a fucking conspiracy theory?
> That's why Conservative racists are all runnin' shit





> I was watching the Towers, and though I wasn't the closest
> I saw them crumble to the Earth like they was full of explosives
> 
> The Devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th
> The New World Order was born on September 11


And so on



DotCommunist said:


> theres quite a few hip hop conspiraloons aren't there? can't recall the name of the artist who turned up at occupy ny giving it full loon. _Rothschilds_, the works


That was Mr.Technique.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Dec 4, 2014)

Just had to post The WSWS's take on Brand



> Anyone with a shred of political integrity or class consciousness understands that Brand must be defended against such loathsome, conformist bile, articulated by the smug, self-satisfied upper middle-class media servants of the ruling elite. Individually, they hate Brand because he has dared to challenge the status quo from which they benefit. And all references to Brand’s wealth to demonstrate his supposed “hypocrisy”--coming from this quarter--are simply jealousy, combined with a real sense of shock and outrage that someone can so readily bite the hand that feeds them.






> At one time, this would have been almost inconceivable. No one but an out-and-out political reactionary would have felt it possible to dismiss such world-historic events with a verbal flourish. But today’s not-so-leftist circles, wedded as they are to a capitalist system that ensures that they are comfortably well off, are more than ready to rail against the supposed futility of the October Revolution without feeling compelled to engage with the titanic figure of Trotsky and his struggle against Stalinism.




Titanic figure.  lulz.




> beginning—I would strongly suggest—with a careful study of David North’s The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century.




What a surprise.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Dec 4, 2014)

I'm not even disdainful of Trotsky or Lenin (and they've both somewhat influenced my thinking, both as a lesson in what not to do and marxist theory in general) but this sort of idol worship is so cringeworthy ffs.


----------



## JimW (Dec 4, 2014)

dialectician said:


> Titanic figure.  lulz.


Yes, ridiculous, everyone knows it was an icepick not an iceberg.

Though I've asked for a titanic figure of Trotsky for Christmas, to go with my Megatron.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Dec 4, 2014)

JimW said:


> Yes, ridiculous, everyone knows it was an icepick not an iceberg.
> 
> Though I've asked for a titanic figure of Trotsky for Christmas, to go with my Megatron.



I want one now!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2014)

JimW said:


> Yes, ridiculous, everyone knows it was an icepick not an iceberg.
> 
> Though I've asked for a titanic figure of Trotsky for Christmas, to go with my Megatron.




a megatrot to go with megatron


----------



## JimW (Dec 4, 2014)

dialectician said:


> I want one now!


You may have to settle for a merely large Lenin.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Dec 4, 2014)

JimW said:


> You may have to settle for a merely large Lenin.



Think I'll go with the ol' chairman Mao, or sturdy Lynch.

Don't look at me like that, this is my way to grab a date.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 4, 2014)

dialectician said:


> I want one now!


----------



## emanymton (Dec 5, 2014)

I want one of these now! 
http://www.philosophersguild.com/Leon-Trotsky-Finger-Puppet.html


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 5, 2014)

I haven't really been following this thread that closely, but the fact we have a 38 page thread on Russell Brand, rather than a 38 page thread on the topics he says he wants to highlight, speaks for itself.


----------



## D'wards (Dec 5, 2014)

Them lads from The Sun have really got the bit between the teeth...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 5, 2014)

At the risk of feeding the monster that is Brandism.... what the fuck sort of logic is "his landlord is a tax dodger therefore he can't be against tax dodging"?


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 5, 2014)

I'm surprised that the Sun are going for him this strongly - do they really care that much?  I can't see how he's that big a threat to the order of things.  Is this just an attempt at click-baiting 'lefties' to comment on their page?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm surprised that the Sun are going for him this strongly - do they really care that much?  I can't see how he's that big a threat to the order of things.  Is this just an attempt at click-baiting 'lefties' to comment on their page?


People are interested in Brand. People like rows. People like celebs getting some stick. Put all three together and you have sales. That's it. The political content is irrelevant/non-existent.


----------



## rover07 (Dec 5, 2014)

Russell Brand nails the Sun with his answer.


----------



## D'wards (Dec 5, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm surprised that the Sun are going for him this strongly - do they really care that much?  I can't see how he's that big a threat to the order of things.  Is this just an attempt at click-baiting 'lefties' to comment on their page?


 I think Brand has been quite outspoken and critical of The Sun in the past. Indeed when i first saw him in a 3/4 empty room years ago he did a routine about The Sun's infamous Asylum Seekers Eating the Queen's Swans story, and the letters page about Ian Huntley having a voodoo doll in his cell. Was very funny.


----------



## rover07 (Dec 5, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm surprised that the Sun are going for him this strongly - do they really care that much?  I can't see how he's that big a threat to the order of things.  Is this just an attempt at click-baiting 'lefties' to comment on their page?



I imagine the Tories want to silence him or smear him as soon as possible. The internet can't be bought out like the print media so he's a big threat, exposing the tax avoiders and manipulators of capitalism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 5, 2014)

one of his funnier rants as standup was talking about the sun 'You ever grow up with a mate who you realise you really fucking hate?'

or similar Youtube will have it


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

rover07 said:


> I imagine the Tories want to silence him or smear him as soon as possible. The internet can't be bought out like the print media so he's a big threat, exposing the tax avoiders and manipulators of capitalism.


Are you doing a routine right now?


----------



## rekil (Dec 5, 2014)

What butchers said. It's a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. The celeb thrives on publicity, attention and fame; the sun sells papers, clickthroughs and whatnot. He used to work for them didn't he?


----------



## rover07 (Dec 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you doing a routine right now?



Have the IWCA had a big shift to the Right?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 5, 2014)

rover07 said:


> Have the IWCA had a big shift to the Right?



What?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 5, 2014)

copliker said:


> What butchers said. It's a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. The celeb thrives on publicity, attention and fame; the sun sells papers, clickthroughs and whatnot. He used to work for them didn't he?



Fair enough, I just didn't think he was getting that much attention in the press for what he was doing, outside of various appearances to sell his book and the odd newsnight/C4 news spot that's probably off the radar of most of the population, but then I don't watch much telly so don't know where else he's been popping up.  It's like they're giving him more attention and attacking harder than I though he would warrant, that's all.  It's not like he's in any danger of starting a movement or anything.

As 'hypocrisy' goes it's fairly tame, there are more significant political figures guilty of far far worse, even allowing for the context of what he's been speaking out about, but I suppose 'celebs' sell a story more.


----------



## rekil (Dec 5, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Fair enough, I just didn't think he was getting that much attention in the press for what he was doing, outside of various appearances to sell his book and the odd newsnight/C4 news spot that's probably off the radar of most of the population, but then I don't watch much telly so don't know where else he's been popping up.  It's like they're giving him more attention and attacking harder than I though he would warrant, that's all.  It's not like he's in any danger of starting a movement or anything.
> 
> As 'hypocrisy' goes it's fairly tame, there are more significant political figures guilty of far far worse, even allowing for the context of what he's been speaking out about, but I suppose 'celebs' sell a story more.


His thing with Paxman has over 10 million views on youtube. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he's in the vein of plan b
> 
> convinced me that people from leeds can rap, even though you wouldn't credit such a thing



who you talking about


----------



## gosub (Dec 5, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...ro-to-zero-Russell-Brands-biggest-gaffes.html

Another offshore owned media giant calls time on brand as one of the beautiful people.  the indy is still giving him fair crack of the whip and the Beeb has booked him for a QT with Farage


----------



## D'wards (Dec 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> one of his funnier rants as standup was talking about the sun 'You ever grow up with a mate who you realise you really fucking hate?'
> 
> or similar Youtube will have it


 His point was that they love to keep foisting hate figures on the public  - a manner of two minute hate i suppose - modern day bogeymen, whether it be asylum seekers or child murderers "I made up my mind about Ian Huntley when he abducted and killed those two girls, I don't need constant reminders of how evil he is - 'Oh no, Ian Huntley  has been found with voodoo dolls in his cell, what a shame - I liked him!'".

Looks like he may be the current target of the two minute hate


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 5, 2014)

The level of Russell Brands output  'The Trews' is prolific. 
And much of what he says is true, espec exposure of people like Philip Green, Fox News, Walmart, etc.
Max Keiser is perhaps more 'highbrow' but a bit gruff and cocky for my liking.
Russell Brand is good enough for me. 

If you aint read it, I recommend reading 'The Passionate state of mind' and 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer, on the nature of mass movements. They are also written in straightforward and clear English that is acccesible to everyone.


----------



## rekil (Dec 5, 2014)

Max Keiser is sewage.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 5, 2014)

copliker said:


> Max Keiser is sewage.



He is too cynical.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 5, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> who you talking about




braintax. Hip hop from leeds. This northern housemate I lived with introduced me to him. Massively ill advised galloway sample on  one tune though. But skilled flow imo.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 5, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I haven't really been following this thread that closely, but the fact we have a 38 page thread on Russell Brand, rather than a 38 page thread on the topics he says he wants to highlight, speaks for itself.



there's 1000's of pages "on the topics he says he wants to highlight" spread accross these forums, accross a 10 yr + period


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 5, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> The level of Russell Brands output  'The Trews' is prolific.
> And much of what he says is true, espec exposure of people like Philip Green, Fox News, Walmart, etc.
> Max Keiser is perhaps more 'highbrow' but a bit gruff and cocky for my liking.
> *Russell Brand is good enough for me*.
> ...



You are selling yourself short and by implication a lot of other people too; aspire to more.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## cantsin (Dec 5, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You are selling yourself short and by implication a lot of other people too; aspire to more.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



aspiring to revolutionary purity is a fine and noble thing, and you must be complimented on your ascent to such heady climes p), but while the rest of us trudge around grappling with everyday realities such as they are, the apparent age and outlook of the people i see engaging with Brand on soc. media etc is encouraging in the here and now :  the raw anger, the bristling refusal to be preached at cos of their 'don't vote' positions ( maybe 'learnt' from Brand in some cases, but it's not a difficult proposition to take on), the awareness of the systemic cause of their relative lack of prospects etc -

Brand, for all his inconsistencies / daftness, seems to have become *one *of the focal points for a generation  of young oppositionists/potential oppositionists who have no illusions in Labour, none in the SWP, and apparently very few in the idea of never ending growth delivering them a brighter future. And for the time being, he doesn't look to be doing anyone else's job for them by coralling these (relative) youngsters down any ideological cul de sacs, or pretending to have all the answers.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 5, 2014)

cantsin said:


> *aspiring to revolutionary purity is a fine and noble thing*, and you must be complimented on your ascent to such heady climes p), but while the rest of us trudge around grappling with everyday realities such as they are, the apparent age and outlook of the people i see engaging with Brand on soc. media etc is encouraging in the here and now :  the raw anger, the bristling refusal to be preached at cos of their 'don't vote' positions ( maybe 'learnt' from Brand in some cases, but it's not a difficult proposition to take on), the awareness of the systemic cause of their relative lack of prospects etc -
> 
> Brand, for all his inconsistencies / daftness, seems to have become *one *of the focal points for a generation  of young oppositionists/potential oppositionists who have no illusions in Labour, none in the SWP, and apparently very few in the idea of never ending growth delivering them a brighter future. And for the time being, he doesn't look to be doing anyone else's job for them by coralling these (relative) youngsters down any ideological cul de sacs, or pretending to have all the answers.



That wasn't what I was doing. To be clear what I was thinking was that it is better to aspire to represent ourselves, our needs and desires, than to have someone stand proxy for us. We are an intelligent and articulate society with massive means at our disposal, so lets aspire to make more not less  of ourselves.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 5, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...ro-to-zero-Russell-Brands-biggest-gaffes.html
> 
> Another offshore owned media giant calls time on brand as one of the beautiful people.  the indy is still giving him fair crack of the whip and the Beeb has booked him for a QT with Farage



christ - that is a desperate hatchet job. Apparently Brand is an OTT, hyper manic  big mouth  - well i never -  they'll be running a big expose alleging that he's a sexually promiscuous drug fiend next.


----------



## strummerville (Dec 5, 2014)

Its John Lennon all over again isn't it?


----------



## killer b (Dec 5, 2014)

*something about mark chapman*


----------



## rekil (Dec 5, 2014)

strummerville said:


> Its John Lennon all over again isn't it?


Or a little bit 80's Bono. 



> In Nicaragua it's...well, it's the sexiest revolution I ever saw.  Women in khaki uniforms standing on corners and... well, I don't like anyone with an Armalite rifle,  but they were standing there smoking cigarettes and looking like Miss World."



*shudder*


----------



## strummerville (Dec 5, 2014)

No Bono was always apolitical. Lennon was v similar to Brand in that he flirted with far left politics and preached 'revolution' (not the Beatles song kind he retracted that). Remember him dressing up in army fatigues and doing clench fist salutes, hanging out with the Black panthers and got slagged for singing 'Imagine no possessions' whilst playing it on a huge white piano in his Surrey mansion.


----------



## andysays (Dec 5, 2014)

cantsin said:


> aspiring to revolutionary purity is a fine and noble thing, and you must be complimented on your ascent to such heady climes p), ...



Seriously, fuck right off with your snide comments about "revolutionary purity".

Even assuming that Russell Brand's heart is 100% in the right place, there are people posting here (and I don't include myself among them) who know more, have done more and have achieved more of real and genuine significance than he is ever likely to do.

In saying that, I'm in no way having a dig at Brand or saying that he shouldn't attempt to do things he things are worthwhile in whatever ways seem appropriate to him, but the idea that no-one should dare to criticise aspects of what he's doing, that we should just gratefully accept his recent decision to become a celebrity activist as if no-one can, could or has done anything without him to show us the way buys into the worst sort of elitest shit which is a huge part of the obstacle we have to overcome.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 5, 2014)

copliker said:


> ...He used to work for them didn't he?


Not recently.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...l-brand-pledges-donation-hillsborough-6996005


----------



## smokedout (Dec 5, 2014)

cantsin said:


> Brand, for all his inconsistencies / daftness, seems to have become *one *of the focal points for a generation  of young oppositionists/potential oppositionists who have no illusions in Labour, none in the SWP, and apparently very few in the idea of never ending growth delivering them a brighter future. And for the time being, he doesn't look to be doing anyone else's job for them by coralling these (relative) youngsters down any ideological cul de sacs, or pretending to have all the answers.



he recently invited a known fascist to speak at his book launch and was less than gracious about dropping him when other speakers said they wouldn't share a platform.  he's a conpiraloon and a hippy, he buys into the whole beyond left and right paradigm shift bollocks, he has supported Icke and he doesn't look like moving from that kind of position any time soon.  This is a big problem, because this is almost becomong the de facto stance of a lot of those young oppositionists you speak of, and a lot of the older ones as well.  look at some of the hip hop acts mentioned on here.  it is chanelling people's anger at the shit that is happening to them into a dead end that makes then look daft at best and into the arms of fascists and mystics at worst. I think the problems of celebs in the movement as discussed on this thread are valid, but equally valid is criticism of the kind of shit Brand is coming out with. He's a politically ignorant liability and his sincerity only makes him more dangerous.  That doesn't mean he can't row back from that and move on from being a loon, some people do, but there hasn't been any real sign of that yet.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Seriously, fuck right off with your snide comments about "revolutionary purity".
> 
> Even assuming that Russell Brand's heart is 100% in the right place, there are people posting here (and I don't include myself among them) who know more, have done more and have achieved more of real and genuine significance than he is ever likely to do.
> 
> In saying that, I'm in no way having a dig at Brand or saying that he shouldn't attempt to do things he things are worthwhile in whatever ways seem appropriate to him, but the idea that no-one should dare to criticise aspects of what he's doing, that we should just gratefully accept his recent decision to become a celebrity activist as if no-one can, could or has done anything without him to show us the way buys into the worst sort of elitest shit which is a huge part of the obstacle we have to overcome.



( The smiley was supposed to have signified I was being less than serious about 'revolutionary purity', but good to see the old humour by pass in action, nice one)  

As for " the idea that no one should criticise aspects of what he's doing" , you'll have to point me in the direction of that particular straw man, must have missed it, cos I can't see anyone, anywhere even beginning to suggest that .


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

cantsin said:


> ( The smiley was supposed to have signified I was being less than serious about 'revolutionary purity', but good to see the old humour by pass in action, nice one)
> 
> As for " the idea that no one should criticise aspects of what he's doing" , you'll have to point me in the direction of that particular straw man, must have missed it, cos I can't see anyone, anywhere even beginning to suggest that .


diane9 has done it to very insulting effect on the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 5, 2014)

Ok, obviously didn't see that, maybe he could take that up with them , + just stick to his po faced hissing at me for whatevs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

cantsin said:


> Ok, obviously didn't see that, maybe he could take that up with them , + just stick to his po faced hissing at me for whatevs.


She's done it to everyone that _even dares doubt though._ And that attitude is now real. And that's the fight now support RB or spit in the face of the 96. I want no part of that filth. Any talk about social housing  - _nah, defend RB,attack the sun/ attack RB. _


----------



## andysays (Dec 5, 2014)

cantsin said:


> Ok, obviously didn't see that, maybe he could take that up with them , + just stick to his po faced hissing at me for whatevs.



Maybe *you* should read the thread you're contributing to before making comments referring to "revolutionary purity", you silly cunt 

Ooh, I used a smiley, that means I can later claim I was being less than serious about calling you a silly cunt...


----------



## cantsin (Dec 5, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe *you* should read the thread you're contributing to before making comments referring to "revolutionary purity", you silly cunt
> 
> Ooh, I used a smiley, that means I can later claim I was being less than serious about calling you a silly cunt...



Thanks for the advice , I should have been more sensitive to how serious a subject " revolutionary purity" can be to some (plse feel free to keep giving it the " fuck right off " / " silly cunt " schtick , yre  obviously a bit of chap around here eh )


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 5, 2014)




----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 5, 2014)

Brand is doing a fine job and getting more and more publicity for positive causes, just in time for the next election.   

Anyone here who thinks they can do better or as well should maybe start their own youtube channel or try to engage the unengaged.

I'm sure the wonderful way they have with communicating will win over millions.

Brand is positive, urban is just angry.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

Just in time for the next election.  

Spot the problem pesty.


----------



## Idaho (Dec 5, 2014)

I find him a bit weird and annoying, but I'm glad he's doing what he's doing. Old grumpy leftists are going to find dashing popularists beyond the pale.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I find him a bit weird and annoying, but I'm glad he's doing what he's doing. Old grumpy leftists are going to find dashing popularists beyond the pale.


Marvelous. I could have written this for you. So could he.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I find him a bit weird and annoying, but I'm glad he's doing what he's doing. Old grumpy leftists are going to find dashing popularists beyond the pale.


I'm great/they're cunts. 

I agree with the cunts though. Well done, here is you whle middle class cake. It'as yours to eat when you want. Right?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I find him a bit weird and annoying, but I'm glad he's doing what he's doing. Old grumpy leftists are going to find dashing popularists beyond the pale.


Note the age thing here - why age? Why have you, an older and richer man than me, chosen to use age here?


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 5, 2014)

butchers desperately looking for argument

Brand looking for engagement.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> butchers desperately looking for argument
> 
> Brand looking for engagement.


Look what fishy he's caught. An aging  pest and sexist. 

What was it about the aging sex pest with a commitment to social issues that first attracted you to tommy Sheridan in 1987? How about this new one?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 5, 2014)

Wish we could hear a bit more from the E15 mums and New Era estate residents and a bit less Brand


----------



## Idaho (Dec 5, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> butchers desperately looking for argument
> 
> Brand looking for engagement.


He's barking up the wrong tree here


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Wish we could hear a bit more from the E15 mums and New Era estate residents and a bit less Brand


How would that have happened?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 5, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> How would that have happened?



You tell me


----------



## Idaho (Dec 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Wish we could hear a bit more from the E15 mums and New Era estate residents and a bit less Brand


People (from the outside) like the simplicity of a single (preferably famous) person. I don't know what we can do about it


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> You tell me


It's your wish, I can't tell you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> How would that have happened?


Are you saying that it couldn't? There were tens of people outside that door that day. If C4 were there to cover them. Now they are there to cover Brand. Brand did that. 

And all you people who did fuck all are now moralising about brand as a cipher for doing fuck all for new era.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

Idaho said:


> People (from the outside) like the simplicity of a single (preferably famous) person. I don't know what we can do about it


You can refuse to give them one. Pretty fucking simple.

edit: and refuse to be one.


----------



## Idaho (Dec 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And all you people who did fuck all are now moralising about brand as a cipher for doing fuck all for new era.


That's a fair point.


----------



## Idaho (Dec 5, 2014)

I think the problem and solution are psychological. There doesn't seem to be any way to just argue and reason ones way to better society. It's so often been change through popularists (with dubious credentials and motives).


----------



## rover07 (Dec 5, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Brand is doing a fine job and getting more and more publicity for positive causes, just in time for the next election.
> 
> Anyone here who thinks they can do better or as well should maybe start their own youtube channel or try to engage the unengaged.



God forbid. I can just imagine Butchersapron or some other boring twunt from the IWCA/SWP droning on about their latest pamphlet.

'Join the revolutionary party... come and be lectured for hours and hours at our dingy meetings'

'Bring some baccy and filters...'


----------



## Humberto (Dec 5, 2014)

Perhaps Brands' words encourage and strengthen the causes he takes on. But Brand isn't in the same boat as those he supports and shouldn't get all the adulation which is what
I think drives him. Also Smokedout said on the last page that he has associated with David Icke and open fascists which nobody has disputed here.

I watched his stand up show Messiah Complex and it was shit, rarely funny and grating to watch. He is a bit of an idiot. He comes across better in this 'Trews' business.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 5, 2014)

people really reach for the big book of cliche when thier idols are mocked don't they?


----------



## Tankus (Dec 6, 2014)

So do the haters


Edit ....,not that I give much of a  fuck


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 6, 2014)

Just realised the sun tried to make him look like charles manson.


----------



## Idaho (Dec 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> people really reach for the big book of cliche when thier idols are mocked don't they?


To be honest both the pro and anti Brand discussion seems like a big pile of balls. Excitable on one side, snooty on the other.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

rover07 said:


> God forbid. I can just imagine Butchersapron or some other boring twunt from the IWCA/SWP droning on about their latest pamphlet.
> 
> 'Join the revolutionary party... come and be lectured for hours and hours at our dingy meetings'
> 
> 'Bring some baccy and filters...'



This is a real post. By a real old, sure the whore's better off if we got rid of them off country, maybe we can intimidate them so much they fuck off . Bring the baccy. Remember this? No you fucking don't. You never do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 6, 2014)

Idaho said:


> To be honest both the pro and anti Brand discussion seems like a big pile of balls. Excitable on one side, snooty on the other.



good job you get to feel superior to both sides then eh


----------



## J Ed (Dec 6, 2014)




----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 6, 2014)

^^missing a 'c'?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Idaho said:


> To be honest both the pro and anti Brand discussion seems like a big pile of balls. Excitable on one side, snooty on the other.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 6, 2014)

BTW while people are dissecting stuff as boring as Russell Brand, has anyone explored the beef between him and our long lost Brightonian comrade overseas?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)




----------



## Idaho (Dec 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> good job you get to feel superior to both sides then eh


Isn't that the goal of the p&p board?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Idaho said:


> Isn't that the goal of the p&p board?


Marvelous.


----------



## caleb (Dec 6, 2014)

What really separates Brand's nonsense from the politics of the weirder edges of the conspiratorial right? There's good reason he hobnobs with Icke and Alex Jones, they're peddling the same shit. What's with the assumption he's "one of us"?


----------



## Idaho (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Marvelous.


Exhibit A.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Wish we could hear a bit more from the E15 mums and New Era estate residents and a bit less Brand



And there's the crappy thing - we were "hearing a bit more from them", *before* RB came on the scene. The E15 women pulled off a stunning bit of activism, an occupation that drew national attention, infuriated their local authority *and* highlighted the fact that the same local authority had an estate-full of homes that could have been used as short-term accommodation. It wasn't until they ended the occupation that Brand really got involved.
As for New Era, _Private Eye_ have been building that story, with the help of local papers and the occasional national press story, for a year or more.

In my (jaundiced) opinion, a lot of the people metaphorically patting RB on the back and saying "you da man!" are those who like the idea of shit being done *for* them, and they like the sense of *immediacy* that RB gives to the causes he gets involved in. Anyone who's done actual activism, though, knows full well that activism takes long, slow laborious organisation, and that it needs people to be involved all the way through, not just to come along when the hard organisational work is done, and associate yourself with the cause.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2014)

Idaho said:


> People (from the outside) like the simplicity of a single (preferably famous) person. I don't know what we can do about it



Don't say "people", when you mean *you*, there's a good chap. You don't speak for me.


----------



## Idaho (Dec 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't say "people", when you mean *you*, there's a good chap. You don't speak for me.


Happy to exclude you old bean. Interested to see any evidence of political activism by even a large minority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I think the problem and solution are psychological. There doesn't seem to be any way to just argue and reason ones way to better society. It's so often been change through popularists (with dubious credentials and motives).



I think that the problem and the solution aren't psychological, they're structural. We exist within a polity where we have no power. We have a voting franchise that merely allows us to vote for (or not) one or another of a group of political place-men (or women) once in a while, but we have *no* mechanism by which we can actually ensure our "elected representatives" *represent* US, rather than their party's lines.
Popularism generally buys nothing but another arsehole hanging over the parapet, shitting on the masses below.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

This is an anecdote from another message board

_I live in E15, so I was automatically drawn into the campaign to get homes for the E15 mums kicked out of their hostel. When they occupied the empty houses in the Carpenters Estate, Russell came along with his camera crew. But then he kept coming back. He painted walls, he sanded floorboards, he bought food. And whenever the campaign became too much about him, he withdrew._


Not to say this is conclusive, but I wonder how many people assumed differently with no evidence, and why.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> people really reach for the big book of cliche when thier idols are mocked don't they?



rover07 doesn't have any other books.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Idaho said:


> Exhibit A.


Excellent. Names not down - monkey man says you're not coming in. He's got a list. He drew it up himself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is an anecdote from another message board
> 
> _I live in E15, so I was automatically drawn into the campaign to get homes for the E15 mums kicked out of their hostel. When they occupied the empty houses in the Carpenters Estate, Russell came along with his camera crew. But then he kept coming back. He painted walls, he sanded floorboards, he bought food. And whenever the campaign became too much about him, he withdrew._
> 
> ...



Four words there that make it look like opportunism - "with his camera crew". So, whatever he did after the original visit, the original intent was "lets *use* these peoples' story" (my emphasis).


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Dec 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Four words there that make it look like opportunism - "with his camera crew". So, whatever he did after the original visit, the original intent was "lets *use* these peoples' story" (my emphasis).


Why so cynical VP? The guy is essentially saying out loud to a wide audience the same things as been said on this site for over a decade. He's pushing the very causes, like E15 mums, that the left want to see pushed to the top of the agenda. I just don't understand why he's being attacked for it. Well I do it's cos he's now rich so he's not 'one of us' but I really don't get it. It's like you'd rather have the feeling of superiority of putting him down than actually cheering him on for saying the very things you believe


----------



## andysays (Dec 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Four words there that make it look like opportunism - "with his camera crew". So, whatever he did after the original visit, the original intent was "lets *use* these peoples' story" (my emphasis).



You might be right in your assessment of his intent, or he might have thought "lets use my celebrity and the fact that I can bring along a camera crew etc to give these people's cause more publicity"

I don't think we can necessarily attribute a particular intent to him, but I also think that attempting to focus on that aspect misses the wider point that whatever his intent, the actual result is that the E15 were already getting some publicity which focussed on them, and now the focus is on RB's involvement, and similarly with the New Era campaign.

This bit of taffboy gwyrdd's quote is interesting

_ And whenever the campaign became too much about him, he withdrew._

I'm a little skeptical about this, but if RB *is* reconsidering his approach (and I haven't seen any sign of this myself) then fair play to him on a personal level - he is as human and fallible as anyone, and he may recognise that he is becoming the story rather than the causes and step away, assuming his ego allows him to...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Why so cynical VP? The guy is essentially saying out loud to a wide audience the same things as been said on this site for over a decade. He's pushing the very causes, like E15 mums, that the left want to see pushed to the top of the agenda. I just don't understand why he's being attacked for it. Well I do it's cos he's now rich so he's not 'one of us' but I really don't get it. It's like you'd rather have the feeling of superiority of putting him down than actually cheering him on for saying the very things you believe



It's not about "he's not one of us", or about feeling superior, or about wealth. What it's about is causes and how they're affected. 

Let's build a hypothetical scenario: Your local council decides to place Compulsory Purchase Orders (as usual, about 10-20% below the actual market price, so you'll be fucked over if you want to buy somewhere else in the same area) on your street because they want to demolish to make way for - I dunno - a municipal sewage works, and you band together with other people on your street (and neighbouring streets) to try and stop this. You do this for several months, building up your network of contacts, getting the local media on-side with stories in papers and on your local TV and radio news, and that's what your cause is about.
If someone like Russell Brand comes along and joins in, that helps the cause in a transient way - you get some publicity in the national media - but the celeb also brings all their baggage with them - In Bono's case it was his tax hypocrisy, in Brand's it's his addiction to conspiracy theory - and invariably the media *will* bring that baggage into the story, making the story much more about the celeb than about the cause, and even if it doesn't actively harm your attempt to stop the council CPOing your street, it still shifts the idea in the minds of the people you're trying to reach from "fuck me, the council are acting like complete cuntbuckets! I'm going to write a letter to my local paper, and to my MP" to "Oh, they're okay, they've got that celebrity supporting them now!".


----------



## andysays (Dec 6, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Why so cynical VP? The guy is essentially saying out loud to a wide audience the same things as been said on this site for over a decade. He's pushing the very causes, like E15 mums, that the left want to see pushed to the top of the agenda. *I just don't understand why he's being attacked for it*. Well I do it's cos he's now rich so he's not 'one of us' but I really don't get it. It's like you'd rather have the feeling of superiority of putting him down than actually cheering him on for saying the very things you believe



I'll try to explain what my criticism of his involvement is (and I'm not attacking him, I'm trying to point out the problems with any celebrity activist involvement, whoever the particular celeb might be and however well intentioned they might be).

One of the important ideas of community organising or whatever you want to call it is that the campaign is driven by the community themselves and that they speak for themselves, rather than their campaign being dominated and driven by outsiders, whether those outsiders are a group like the SWP (other examples are available) or a celeb activist like RB (again, OEAA).

As soon as outsiders get involved enough to influence the direction or the approach of a campaign, the nature of that campaign changes and, in this case particularly, the way that campaign is portrayed in the media and therefore seen by the vast majority of people changes.

In this case, it changes from 

"E15 mums fight to re-house themselves in empty flats in their local area", 

to "Russell Brand gets involved in campaign of E15 mums". 

The details of the campaign and the people directly involved get pushed into the background. In the first one, they are the active creators of their own campaign, their own lives, in the second they are the passive recipients of some celebrity do-gooder's charity.

This is not necessarily RB's intention, or even his fault, but it is a pretty much inevitable consequence of his getting involved, and it is a significant problem which it is right for people to point out, both here and to RB himself.


----------



## JHE (Dec 6, 2014)

I don't like Brand.  As an actor, he's OK.  As a comedian, he's tedious.  His joke phone call to Andrew Sachs was nasty, cruel and witless.  As a preacher of half-baked radicalism, he's patronising and gives me a slight headache. 

But I don't doubt his sincerity at all.  Deep down he's an earnest man, which probably makes him thoroughly unsuitable as a comic.



andysays said:


> In this case, it changes from
> 
> "E15 mums fight to re-house themselves in empty flats in their local area",
> 
> ...



Up to a point, but I think you overstate the problem.  The campaigners do not become and, afaik, are not presented as passive or as recipients of charity from Brand.

For the people at the heart of he campaign, the involvement of the celeb like Brand has a good side and a bad side.  On the one hand, they want lots of publicity and the celeb wins them that publicity.  On the other hand, as you point out, the celeb tends to become the centre of the story.

If at some point the people whose campaign it is think the bad side outweighs the good, they can tell him to bugger off.  I think he would if asked.  For as long as the good outweighs the bad, they'll continue to welcome him.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 6, 2014)

Urban's jelly.


----------



## Idaho (Dec 6, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that the problem and the solution aren't psychological, they're structural. We exist within a polity where we have no power. We have a voting franchise that merely allows us to vote for (or not) one or another of a group of political place-men (or women) once in a while, but we have *no* mechanism by which we can actually ensure our "elected representatives" *represent* US, rather than their party's lines.
> Popularism generally buys nothing but another arsehole hanging over the parapet, shitting on the masses below.





Idaho said:


> Happy to exclude you old bean. Interested to see any evidence of political activism by even a large minority.


Poll tax was one. That was popular and pluralistic, without having a leader. But that was kind of a special circumstance. It was *so* unpopular, affected so many people and was quite a narrow issue to attack.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 6, 2014)

Russell Brand is no longer interested in self promotion - I think he passionately cares about the causes he believes in, and although he WAS self obsessed in the past (and freely admits that in his book), he has experienced an epiphany in his life and has replaced his addictive tendencies in a really positive way. He explains in detail, that it was the God factor he was looking for when he was an addict, but mistakenly took this for 'oblivion' (isnt that what all addicts are searching for...??). He has gotten a LOT of help to get this far, and more power to him. I firmly believe that he doesn't give a damn about 'Russell, the brand' anymore and is sincere. To cynics, shock horror, that a good looking and charismatic man could dare to change...! I am quite frankly dumbfounded that anyone would regard his activities as suspect.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 6, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Russell Brand is no longer interested in self promotion - I think he passionately cares about the causes he believes in, and although he WAS self obsessed in the past (and freely admits that in his book), he has experienced an epiphany in his life and has replaced his addictive tendencies in a really positive way. He explains in detail, that it was the God factor he was looking for when he was an addict, but mistakenly took this for 'oblivion' (isnt that what all addicts are searching for...??) I firmly believe that he doesn't give a damn about 'Russell, the brand' anymore and is sincere. To cynics, shock horror, that a good looking and charismatic man could dare to change...! I am quite frankly dumbfounded that anyone would regard his activities as suspect.



I think I probably agree with you for the first time ever. . . . and I am even agreeing with you over something to do with Russell Brand. 
What a funny old world.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Dec 6, 2014)

Thanks for explaining VP and andysays. I do get it, that the celebrity can change the media focus or *become* the focus. Guess it's a trade off and E15 mums thought it worth while. Tbf if I was running a campaign and a celebrity wanted to get involved I'd probably say yes. People are influenced by them after all.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

Of course media changes the emphasis in a way that can detract, but thats media being shits, not Brand. He will know all this, the double edged sword aspext of what he is doing. Its not like he's new to the media/politics interface "Nazi boy" was yonks ago, and before he was really"famous "


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Just look at the red-hot-chat on here, the discussions of social housing over the last week.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

*The Sun's Attempt To Crush Russell Brand Is Looking A Little Desperate*

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/03/russell-brand-the-sun_n_6259906.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Try not to be distracted. I'm not important. Don't let them distract you. pic.twitter.com/qpf2gGeRCe

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) December 2, 2014


----------



## Idaho (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just look at the red-hot-chat on here, the discussions of social housing over the last week.


Something constructive?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> *The Sun's Attempt To Crush Russell Brand Is Looking A Little Desperate*
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/03/russell-brand-the-sun_n_6259906.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
> 
> ...


Great - a media battle. Not a damn thing you have said is about the fights. It's all about russel. It's all about the media fight with brand and how everyone else lines up in that fight. Job done.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Idaho said:


> Something constructive?


What on earth does this mean? Tell me what you  - remembering that you're a self appointed  bouncer - counts as constructive. In terms of this thread, not being an arrogant cunt and actually reading it and the posts made before you deigned to appear. That would be constructive _right now._


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Great - a media battle. Not a damn thing you have said is about the fights. It's all about russel. Job done.



Great, you're doing the very thing you object to -- making Russel the issue.  You're letting the media lead you into lambasting him.  I haven't seen you write anything about the Revolution, whereas I have.



Diana9 said:


> One thing that can happen is you give "the bad guys" enough rope to hang themselves with, so that everybody can see how really bad they are.  Another thing that can happen is people, once coming to the realization that their vote is pointless, they'll become more self-reliant, more engaged in their community. As long as we passively accept the "lesser evil" scheme (and compliantly support it with our vote, expecting nothing better for ourselves), nothing will change.
> 
> We can look back at history and learn a few lessons.
> 
> A decade before the American Rebellion became a Revolution (i.e.,  a "War of Independence") in 1776, the colonists came up with a brilliant strategy:  the boycott.  They boycotted all British goods.  This brought the colonists together in solidarity.  It worked then, a similar strategy can work again against the corporate powers.





Diana9 said:


> That's why we who are able have to stand with those who are less able.  That's what Brand is doing.
> 
> No, I would expect individuals to arise from the community who have proven their commitment to serve the people, to run for office.





Diana9 said:


> Sounds like you've bought into their "be afraid" meme.  Fear is what makes people passive, and that's just how the powers-that-be want us.
> 
> Courage is a revolutionary act in itself.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Great, you're doing the very thing you object to -- making Russel the issue.  You're letting the media lead you into lambasting him.  I haven't seen you write anything about the Revolution, whereas I have.


If i find him the issue then he is issue. You're already trying to to take people's voice away. From ,what 3000 miles away. This is exactly how it works.

I couldn't give two fucks for the Revolution. Nor does my mum.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Great - a media battle. Not a damn thing you have said is about the fights. It's all about russel. It's all about the media fight with brand and how everyone else lines up in that fight. Job done.



i think the message is whatever causes we have been involved in, stay involved in them, ignore russell brand, this stuff will pass soon. it's not about russell brand, it is about whatever causes we are fighting for. the media will find someone else to vilify before too long, someone or something else to distract us with. i think he will ride this out and carry on with whatever it is he is doing. which is exactly what we could be doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Mungy said:


> i think the message is whatever causes we have been involved in, stay involved in them, ignore russell brand, this stuff will pass soon. it's not about russell brand, it is about whatever causes we are fighting for. the media will find someone else to vilify before too long, someone or something else to distract us with. i think he will ride this out and carry on with whatever it is he is doing. which is exactly what we could be doing.


That's not diane9's message mate - her message is that everyone should right now get involved in talking about and defending brand and if you don't then you have nothing to say anyway.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not a damn thing you have said is about the fights. It's all about russel.





Diana9 said:


> Great, you're doing the very thing you object to -- making Russel the issue.  You're letting the media lead you into lambasting him.  I haven't seen you write anything about the Revolution, whereas I have.





butchersapron said:


> If i find him the issue then he is issue.



Then why complain that "it's all about russel" when you yourself are making it "all about russel."



> You're already trying to to take people's voice away. From ,what 3000 miles away. This is exactly how it works.



From someone who has posted 132,000 messages, there's hardly a danger of shutting you up. Meanwhile, you try to shut people down with insults.

Who is the hypocrite?  hmm?



> I couldn't give two fucks for the Revolution. Nor does my mum.



haha you're a mass load of contradictions.

Maybe you need to take some time for self-reflection as Brand has done when he asked himself "Oh why am I like this."


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's not diane9's message mate - her message is that everyone should right now get involved in talking about and defending brand and if you don't then you have nothing to say anyway.



That's your message not mine, or why would I post this?



Diana9 said:


> Try not to be distracted. I'm not important. Don't let them distract you. pic.twitter.com/qpf2gGeRCe
> 
> — Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) December 2, 2014


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Then why complain that "it's all about russel" when you yourself are making it "all about russel."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



haha you're a mass load of contradictions.

Maybe you need to take some time for self-reflection as Brand has done when he asked himself "Oh why am I like this."[/QUOTE]

You're not going to shut me up with your russel stuff  -that's true. The others it will wotk on - informally  and more formally - yeah. That's what you are doing right now.

Worship.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's not diane9's message mate - her message is that everyone should right now get involved in talking about and defending brand and if you don't then you have nothing to say anyway.


 I was talking about russell brand's message. I have no opinion on diana9, well nothing outside my head anyway. these things always seems to end up playing the man not the ball kind of stuff, i'm sure there is a proper debating term for it but i have no idea what it is, but it is not pretty.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> That's your message not mine, or why would I post this?


Don't look at my eyes.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just look at the red-hot-chat on here, the discussions of social housing over the last week.



Plenty of people discuss social housing, Brand or no Brand. Here, and not here. 

If it doesn't get discussed is that because he tried to discuss it? Is it his fault?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Mungy said:


> I was talking about russell brand's message. I have no opinion on diana9, well nothing outside my head anyway. these things always seems to end up playing the man not the ball kind of stuff, i'm sure there is a proper debating term for it but i have no idea what it is, but it is not pretty.


i'm talking about diane9 and her idea that everyone should shut up and agree with her/ brand. In life away from here i am doing what you suggest in in post 1232 I think everyone is if they're worth their salt. But prodding the arrogance of people like diane - yes please...let me have this


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Great - a media battle. Not a damn thing you have said is about the fights. It's all about russel. It's all about the media fight with brand and how everyone else lines up in that fight. Job done.



Exactly as RB happens to have said, and again - that simply isn't his fault. 

However, away from social housing, the media being a complete sack of shit is a pretty major issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Plenty of people discuss social housing, Brand or no Brand. Here, and not here.
> 
> If it doesn't get discussed is that because he tried to discuss it? Is it his fault?


I needed a new puncture repair kit - was there some massive ongoing anti-repair kit campaign that you wanted to turn into a debate about you?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Exactly as RB happens to have said, and again - that simply isn't his fault.
> 
> However, away from social housing, the media being a complete sack of shit is a pretty major issue.


What, he gave the media a battle and this is good? I murdered a man on a anti-murder campaign. Clowns now demand i murder again.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You're not going to shut me up with your russel stuff  -that's true. The others it will wotk on - informally  and more formally - yeah. That's what you are doing right now.
> 
> Worship.



You're hilarious. 

You say you don't want to talk about all the "russel stuff" and you "couldn't give two fucks for the Revolution."

Then why. pray tell. are you spending so much time on a thread titled "Russell Brand on the Revolution" badgering people about talking about the topic?

Makes no sense.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> That's your message not mine, or why would I post this?



You do see the irony of this?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

Mungy said:


> I was talking about russell brand's message. I have no opinion on diana9, well nothing outside my head anyway. these things always seems to end up playing the man not the ball kind of stuff,* i'm sure there is a proper debating term for it but i have no idea what it is, but it is not pretty.*



I think two rhetorical fallacies apply here -- _ad hominem_ attacks and _strawman_ arguments.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> You're hilarious.
> 
> You say you don't want to talk about all the "russel stuff" and you "couldn't give two fucks for the Revolution."
> 
> ...


Of course it makes sense. It's fun doing this and it takes no time. It's fun arguing that a well meaning clod is  being a well meaning clod. The real bonus is people like you. You've literally made it all worthwhile. What's under the rock.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I think two rhetorical fallacies apply here -- _ad hominem_ attacks and _strawman_ arguments.


Neither of these are fallacies btw


----------



## andysays (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> ...Maybe you need to take some time for self-reflection as Brand has done when he asked himself "Oh why am I like this."





What would Jesus Russell do?

If it's true, as you claim, that RB isn't interested in becoming the issue, then why do you feel the need to pass on his pronouncements as if he was the new messiah?

And just so you're clear, this is not a criticism of him, it's a criticism of you for continuing to elevate him even as you say he doesn't want or need to be elevated.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)




----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What, he gave the media a battle and this is good?



No. The media chose the battle. He just appears to have been doing something for a campaign he was interested in.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No. The media chose the battle. He just appears to have been doing something for a campaign he was interested in.


Yeah, i didn't do nuffin''guv.


----------



## rekil (Dec 6, 2014)

It's his publicist who tells the media where he'll be tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

copliker said:


> It's his publicist who tells the media where he'll be tbf.


KI-ARA-HARI?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, i didn't do nuffin''guv.



This blew up when a preening hack tried to catch him out, not very successfully. Yes, RB will know that his notoriety will be useful. Slebs have helped out on causes for yonks. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes not. I don't think he has done too badly at all with this one.

As well as highlighting a lot of other causes and issues, Brand attacks the media quite a lot. Their rancid behaviour towards him this week, especially The Sun, shows that he has a point.

I believe undermining the media is key to progress in a lot of issues. The media stank before the E15 issue developed.


----------



## rekil (Dec 6, 2014)

Johann Friday.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This blew up when a preening hack tried to catch him out, not very successfully. Yes, RB will know that his notoriety will be useful. Slebs have helped out on causes for yonks. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes not. I don't think he has done too badly at all with this one.
> 
> As well as highlighting a lot of other causes and issues, Brand attacks the media quite a lot. Their rancid behaviour towards him this week, especially The Sun, shows that he has a point.
> 
> I believe undermining the media is key to progress in a lot of issues. The media stank before the E15 issue developed.


It's all about me but i did nuffin'' to make it all about me 'guv.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This blew up when a preening hack tried to catch him out, not very successfully. Yes, RB will know that his notoriety will be useful. Slebs have helped out on causes for yonks. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes not. I don't think he has done too badly at all with this one.
> 
> As well as highlighting a lot of other causes and issues, Brand attacks the media quite a lot. Their rancid behaviour towards him this week, especially The Sun, shows that he has a point.
> 
> I believe undermining the media is key to progress in a lot of issues. The media stank before the E15 issue developed.


911 too. The whole thing stinks.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's all about me but i did nuffin'' to make it all about me 'guv.



yeah, you ran that line already. He's probably just terribly cynical. After all, you seem to think so.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 911 too. The whole thing stinks.



Why are you changing subjects?


----------



## Flavour (Dec 6, 2014)

Basically Diana9, what irks is the fact you're defending Russell, when he doesn't need defending. As evident by his numerous videos, he is perfectly capable of defending himself. He doesn't need, and more to the point, the wider movement for social change does not need Russell Brand to be a talking point. I imagine that Russell himself would want people like you to learn more about the issues he talks about (New Era estate, for example) and defend the real struggles which involve real working-class people who don't have the luxury (and yes, it is a luxury in this case, and in most cases) of a paparazzi press pack slavering over their every word _because it sells papers_.

He is trying to use this situation to the advantage of the causes he celebrates, and I believe he believes that he's doing a good thing, and potentially, he is, but when people start to worship him or just post his videos / tweets without any comment whatsoever, as you have done numerous times in this thread, it seems a little sad. Especially that someone in California came so close to giving a shit about working-class issues in England but got stuck at the last hurdle of "Russell Brand".


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> yeah, you ran that line already. He's probably just terribly cynical. After all, you seem to think so.


Do i? Other than arguing the exact opposite of course. It's that attention to detail tha has gained you that deserved reputation. Everyonme yjay doesn't agree with me 100% = rat get rid.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Neither of these are fallacies btw



They most definitely are fallacies and this thread is rife with them.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Need more?

*Description of Ad Hominem*

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

*Description of Straw Man*

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


*Straw man*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A *straw man* is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, *particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.*

In the United Kingdom the argument is also known as an *Aunt Sally*, after the pub game of the same name where patrons throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman's head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## Flavour (Dec 6, 2014)

also stop posting long fucking cut and pastes


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do i? Other than arguing the exact opposite of course. It's that attention to detail tha has gained you that deserved reputation. Everyonme yjay doesn't agree with me 100% = rat get rid.



Your attitude to him on here "nothing to do with me guv" displays cynicism. You seem a bit wobbly today, which could be why you're now shifting into the ad hom and general subject hopping.

From accusing RB from detracting from subjects, it's now you doing it, along with being back to your old habit of doing other people's thinking for them.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> They most definitely are fallacies and this thread is rife with them.
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
> ...


Neither are fallacies. You're confusing a rhetorical tool for a fallacy. In fact ...nah  you wouldn't get it anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Your attitude to him on here "nothing to do with me guv" displays cynicism. You seem a bit wobbly today, which could be why you're now shifting into the ad hom and general subject hopping.
> 
> From accusing RB from detracting from subjects, it's now you doing it, along with being back to your old habit of doing other people's thinking for them.


I'm not being  funny but wut? I mean wut?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> View attachment 64644
> 
> What would Jesus Russell do?
> 
> ...



Ad hominem.  I am not the issue, and neither is Brand.

Now, after 43 pages of vilifying Russel Brand and anyone who defends his right to use his celebrity to amplify the struggles of ordinary people, can we talk about the idea of Revolution and how that can be brought about?

I've written before about the American colonists using boycotts to unite the colonies against the British monarchy.  Perhaps we can talk about how boycotts could be effective against today's powers-that-be?  Or do you want to keep ranting about how Russel Brand should just shut up because "he's not one of us because he's a rich celebrity."

*edited to add:*  I'm reading a fascinating book about the American revolution called "The Marketplace of Revolution" which I find highly relevant and instructive for our times.  I'm reading it a second time because it's so dense. There is much to absorb.

_From the review on amazon:

"The Marketplace of Revolution_ offers a boldly innovative interpretation of the mobilization of ordinary Americans on the eve of independence. Breen explores how colonists who came from very different ethnic and religious backgrounds managed to overcome difference and create a common cause capable of galvanizing resistance."

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to do some serious delving into methods of mobilizing people to launch a successful revolution.  I've found it in my library, but if yours doesn't carry it you can buy the book from amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Marketplace-Revolution-Consumer-Politics-Independence/dp/019518131X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417901357&sr=8-1&keywords=The marketplace of revolution : how consumer politics shaped American independence


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

ad hom and fallacy and all sorts of green filth - we going right tio hell. Where ISIS rats get tea from taffboy


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Ad hominem.  I am not the issue, and neither is Brand.
> 
> Now, after 43 pages of vilifying Russel Brand and anyone who defends his right to use his celebrity to amplify the struggles of ordinary people, can we talk about the idea of Revolution and how that can be brought about?
> 
> I've spoken before about the American colonists using boycotts to unite the colonies against the British monarchy.  Perhaps we can talk about how boycotts could be effective against today's powers-that-be?  Or do you want to keep ranting about how Russel Brand should just shut up because "he's not one of us."


You haven't read 43 pages.You are simply lying. Why lie?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

All over the place. It's not even about E15 or Brand on here at the mo, but Butchers slagging people off.

I'd like to say how unusual that is. I'd like to.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 6, 2014)

Not all Greens are bad, the bloke that runs the Another Angry Voice blog is a Green and most of his stuff is pretty good but all the Greens on here seem shit


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Your attitude to him on here "nothing to do with me guv" displays cynicism.


OMG cynicism towards celebs!!!!!!!! call diane9!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can i fix this?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 6, 2014)

Are you still at it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> All over the place. It's not even about E15 or Brand on here at the mo, but Butchers slagging people off.
> 
> I'd like to say how unusual that is. I'd like to.


You had the floor.

Nothing. 

People pointing out brand has become the issue and would become the issue should have had their common sense to know that becomes oh it's all about brand now. The people who were right were the wrong people to be right and far too early.

It's all about you and the media.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Are you still at it?


Am i still not dying - yes. Are you still making a fucking mess of the left in manchester with 911 stuff, spacemen from the past stuff and gen being a bit of a joke.

Yeah.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> *Your attitude to him on here "nothing to do with me guv" displays cynicism*. You seem a bit wobbly today, which could be why you're now shifting into the ad hom and general subject hopping.
> 
> From accusing RB from detracting from subjects, it's now you doing it, along with being back to your old habit of doing other people's thinking for them.



Behold.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You haven't read 43 pages.You are simply lying. Why lie?



Classic example of an _ad hominem_:  Distracting from a book recommendation by attacking the person making the recommendation.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Classic example of an _ad hominem_:  Distracting from a book recommendation by attacking the person.


Where?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where?



My bad, I see now you meant the 43 pages on this thread.  I never claimed to have read all of them, although I read a good many until the vitriol became repetitive and obnoxious ("Russell Brand is a rich celebrity blablablah").  The few posters who actually tried to talk about the issues were shut down with more "Russell Brand is a rich celebrity blablablah" and personal attacks.

Now, back to the topic "Russel Brand on Revolution."  Anyone like to discuss the "revolution" part?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> My bad, I see now you meant the 43 pages on this thread.  I never claimed to have read all of them, although I read a good many until the vitriol became repetitive and obnoxious ("Russell Brand is a rich celebrity blablablah").  The few posters who actually tried to talk about the issues were shut down with more "Russell Brand is a rich celebrity blablablah" and personal attacks.
> 
> Now, back to the topic "Russel Brand on Revolution."  Anyone like to discuss the "revolution" part?


Read them. Then come back.


----------



## andysays (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Ad hominem.  I am not the issue, and neither is Brand.
> 
> Now, after 43 pages of vilifying Russel Brand and anyone who defends his right to use his celebrity to amplify the struggles of ordinary people, can we talk about the idea of Revolution and how that can be brought about?



So stop making yourself and RB the issue. Those of us involved in campaigning in our own communities in our own quiet way (or not so quiet in some cases) were doing so before Russell turned up, and I suspect we'll be here after he's gone. We were certainly doing so before you showed up on this thread, and we'll certainly be here after you've gone.

Maybe you can point out where I have vilified RB or said that he or anyone else doesn't have the right to use any method they see fit to further the struggles of ordinary people (of course he has the right to use his celebrity, just as I have the right to point out the problems that type of celebrity campaigning can bring)*.

And when you can't find any examples of me actually doing that, maybe you can reconsider your use of terms like _ad hominem_ and strawman, which you appear not to understand as well as you'd like to think...

ETA: * or where I've kept ranting about how Russell Brand should just shut up because "he's not one of us because he's a rich celebrity", in fact where I've even said it once.

(graphic removed because it takes up too much space, and because everyone knows Americans don't get irony anyway)


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Read them. Then come back.



Oh please, who made you the boss.

Stop being such a bully.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 6, 2014)

If anyone has something to say about the topic of this thread I'll be happy to engage with them.  Otherwise, I can't give anymore time to this nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Oh please, who made you the boss.
> 
> Stop being such a bully.


You did.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Oh please, who made you the boss.
> 
> Stop being such a bully.


Here we go. Disagree = bullying. Just as i said would happen. Poison.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 6, 2014)

butchers - give her a break.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> butchers - give her a break.


Patronise  her some more first. And as if you even know what's going on.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Patronise  her some more first. And as if you even know what's going on.



she's expressing her point of view. As you are. Respect to both, no?


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 6, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> she's expressing her point of view. As you are.


So why jump in then? (He says, jumping in ).


----------



## rekil (Dec 6, 2014)

J Ed said:


> BTW while people are dissecting stuff as boring as Russell Brand, has anyone explored the beef between him and our long lost Brightonian comrade overseas?


Is there a beef? From the topsy.com records, it looks like she gave up looking for his approval or trying to network and turned on him. MeMe mag was invented for this.

I @ u - y u no @ back


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 6, 2014)

Dives  back
Posts this
http://redstarcommando.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/we-dont-need-another-hero-or-why.html
Dives out
Bye


----------



## alan_ (Dec 6, 2014)

Sweet FA said:


> So why jump in then? (He says, jumping in ).


Whats the differance between jumping in and posting


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> she's expressing her point of view. As you are. Respect to both, no?


to both people or to both points of view?


----------



## Flavour (Dec 6, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> If anyone has something to say about the topic of this thread I'll be happy to engage with them.  Otherwise, I can't give anymore time to this nonsense.



Is anything said in RB's book that has inspired you to go out and engage with your community or co-workers? That would be a first success to chalk-up, would it not?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2014)

Flavour said:


> Is anything said in RB's book that has inspired you to go out and engage with your community or co-workers? That would be a first success to chalk-up, would it not?


Diana9's come here and engaged with us


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2014)

alan_ said:


> Whats the differance between jumping in and posting


you get water everywhere when you jump in, which you don't when you post.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> If anyone has something to say about the topic of this thread I'll be happy to engage with them.  Otherwise, I can't give anymore time to this nonsense.



ok, so what about the criticism that Brand is promoting a mystical and conspiratorial model of the world which is actively harmful?  and that his response to being caught out giving an active and known fascist a platform was not to immediately apologise but to sulk and try and brush it under the carpet?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 7, 2014)

smokedout said:


> ok, so what about the criticism that Brand is promoting a mystical and conspiratorial model of the world which is actively harmful?



how, exactly? _please_ explain..


----------



## smokedout (Dec 7, 2014)

how is it harmful, or how is he promoting it?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 7, 2014)

smokedout said:


> how is it harmful, or how is he promoting it?



its not harmful


----------



## smokedout (Dec 7, 2014)

hasnt done you any good


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 7, 2014)

smokedout said:


> hasnt done you any good



Russell Brand - as a person speaking out - has done me the world of good for the past three years (since I been talking about him on here and explaining to people, oooh, probably two years ago, that this is a _serious man_ who has a serious point to make who should be taken seriously) oh how they laughed  (and I laughed at the time, but i never doubted that he was serious, and i am right about that). Sorry, if i forgot you, i want to hear your point of view. Feel free to do so.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Patronise  her some more first. And as if you even know what's going on.



Lots of decent discussion has been had on this thread, coming from all angles but still generally repectable.

But a certain source can't help but pollute it with constant snide personal put downs that are often well off topic.

A person accusing someone else of being patronising, having patronised the purported receiver of the treatment, saying she "wouldn't get it it anyway"  of the presumably mind blowing analysis we were never fortunate enough to be party to.

The person trying to do another poster down with very disjointed and inaccurate info about who they are/what they do IRL, as well as all sorts of other fractured stuff, when he doesn't know them IRL.

The person who has consistently acted up the self appointed expert in all manner of stuff, hurls insults around, a consistent bully and smartarse who still doesn't like it a bit when the tables are turned for a moment.

A person who actually has more than enough to offer without resorting to any of the above, but just can't help himself.

day in and week out, at any time a thread can be derailed.

An all round unpleasant bit of work, at least as far as this parish is concerned, and case study of the sort of behaviour that alienates people.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 7, 2014)

smokedout said:


> ok, so what about the criticism that Brand is promoting a mystical and conspiratorial model of the world which is actively harmful?  and that his response to being caught out giving an active and known fascist a platform was not to immediately apologise but to sulk and try and brush it under the carpet?



Haven't read the book, but isn't the conspiraloon side of things kept to a minimum ? Always get the impression RB looks at the alex Jones / Icke side of things , ( just like he'd look at every wacko during his early tv shows ) but doesn't get sucked in ? 

If he'd stuck by Eastman, it would have been the end of RB politically ( I'd have hoped) , and I'd still like to know how anyone with any political nous cld have not been made aware of the dodgy Cnut, but then find it hard to believe he'd have taken up with an open fash. as well.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 7, 2014)

cantsin said:


> Haven't read the book, but isn't the conspiraloon side of things kept to a minimum ? Always get the impression RB looks at the alex Jones / Icke side of things , ( just like he'd look at every wacko during his early tv shows ) but doesn't get sucked in ?
> 
> If he'd stuck by Eastman, it would have been the end of RB politically ( I'd have hoped) , and I'd still like to know how anyone with any political nous cld have not been made aware of the dodgy Cnut, but then find it hard to believe he'd have taken up with an open fash. as well.



read his book and watch his Trews. He is a serious man with well informed points of view (he faffs around joking a bit but don't we all??). if you can get past this (wow, im a woman and I find this so effortless) you see that Russell Brand is passionately engaged and very serious about he does


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 7, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> read his book and watch his Trews. He is a serious man with serious points of view.



The notable thing about Trews for me isn't even as much the content as the fact that he at least does it every weekday without fail. Ego, faults and all, he is committed.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 7, 2014)

cantsin said:


> Haven't read the book, but isn't the conspiraloon side of things kept to a minimum ? Always get the impression RB looks at the alex Jones / Icke side of things , ( just like he'd look at every wacko during his early tv shows ) but doesn't get sucked in ?
> 
> If he'd stuck by Eastman, it would have been the end of RB politically ( I'd have hoped) , and I'd still like to know how anyone with any political nous cld have not been made aware of the dodgy Cnut, but then find it hard to believe he'd have taken up with an open fash. as well.



it's always kept to a minimum to anyone with the barest of nous, its always there though, see taffboy for details.


> “I think it is interesting at this time when we have so little trust in our political figures, where ordinary people have so little trust in their media, we have to remain open-minded to any kind of possibility,” he said.
> 
> “Do you trust the American government? Do you trust the British government? What I do think is very interesting is the relationship that the Bush family have had for a long time with the Bin Laden family.
> 
> “What I do think is very interesting is the way that even the BBC report the events in Ottawa to subtly build an anti-Islamic narrative. I think that’s very interesting.”



come on, what do people who say stuff like this in public believe?  

I dont believe he took up with open fash.  I think he was swindled.  But he didnt care. His response to his fuck up was pure PR.  Thats not a person we can trust, he fucked up really badly and laughed it off.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 7, 2014)

Lets be kind to all folk......they mean well....


----------



## smokedout (Dec 7, 2014)

was hitler a hippy?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 7, 2014)

Someone made a gag about "Adolf Hipster" but I can't remember the punchline.

Anyway, on the subject of conspiracy theorists - there's not exactly a consensus but plenty of them think RB is an illuminatti fake. 

As on many topics, I think they are wrong.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Lots of decent discussion has been had on this thread, coming from all angles but still generally repectable.
> 
> But a certain source can't help but pollute it with constant snide personal put downs that are often well off topic.
> 
> ...



Got to say, that seems like v inflated / exaggerated version of whats been going on here


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

It's not ad hominem to be critical/skeptical/cautious about the value/nature of celebrity in relation to political activity and to then be critical/skeptical/cautious about brand as a celeb.

It's not good enough for brand to claim he doesn't want it to be about him when he must know the nature of celeb media will definitely do that and he can only stem it by trying to be anonymous in the groups, which he isn't doing.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

The conspiraloon stuff is actively harmful imo, something I've changed my view on since occupy.
Me and blagsta had different views on this at the time, but he was right about the inherent racism in that culture, which also had an easy slide to fascism despite being apparently about freedom.
It fucks up political or community organising by misdirection, both in terms of class/capital being ignored and an apparent inability to suggest any kind of action to stop the lizard people except through watching YouTube videos.

The end effect of it is very disempowering, because the forces that control your life are placed outside of your control

It also put loads of people off when some of the first conversations they'd have would be chemtrails and 9/11 shit.

Most of the loons were anarcho capitalists too, except the zeitgeist/project Venus lot who had a computer based technocratic socialism in mind.

There's no arguing with them either, true believers.

Was funny being accused of being a CIA cointel agent using delta mind control tricks though


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

Exactly. It's actively harmful.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

from what i have seen on the trews he is critical of the establishment, promotes the idea of direct action, speaks out against inequality, promotes the idea of communities working together. as much as i wanted to hate russell brand, i have found myself liking him and much of what he says.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Dives  back
> Posts this
> http://redstarcommando.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/we-dont-need-another-hero-or-why.html
> Dives out
> Bye



That's an excellent piece, nice one.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> from what i have seen on the trews he is critical of the establishment, promotes the idea of direct action, speaks out against inequality, promotes the idea of communities working together. as much as i wanted to hate russell brand, i have found myself liking him and much of what he says.



yeah, but what's the call to action going to be? Don't vaccinate your kids, don't drink tapwater and get paranoid about planes in the sky whilst shaking your fist at the reptilian overlords who constantly disrupt your plans for freedom with their devious schemes to murder everyone (whilst never actually seeming to get round to doing any actual global genocides)... or to build something that will work to improving the deal we currently have with capital in a small or big way.

Hopefully Brand will move away from the conspiraloon shit, cos it's a dead end politically and too heavily associated with racism and fascism. To be in that culture you must at least be tolerant of racism if not actually racist. I wonder if there was a time when you could believe in the moon landings being faked and the JFK grassy knoll stuff and not be racist or into global jewish conspiracy shit, but nowadays it's all wrapped up in that. Whenever it's popped up here in the past few years, some people (ButchersApron & Frogwoman mostly I think) have always shown how it's just one or at most two clicks from whatever dodgy source someone posts up to something openly anti-semitic.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

Also, which establishment is it going to be - politicians and rich people as the representatives (? not sure what word I really want here?) of capital or of the jews or some alien shapeshifting reptilians (because we can't say jews anymore). They are the same set of people, but what is behind them is totally different.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Dec 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> yeah, but what's the call to action going to be? Don't vaccinate your kids, don't drink tapwater and get paranoid about planes in the sky whilst shaking your fist at the reptilian overlords who constantly disrupt your plans for freedom with their devious schemes to murder everyone (whilst never actually seeming to get round to doing any actual global genocides)... or to build something that will work to improving the deal we currently have with capital in a small or big way.
> 
> Hopefully Brand will move away from the conspiraloon shit, cos it's a dead end politically and too heavily associated with racism and fascism. To be in that culture you must at least be tolerant of racism if not actually racist. I wonder if there was a time when you could believe in the moon landings being faked and the JFK grassy knoll stuff and not be racist or into global jewish conspiracy shit, but nowadays it's all wrapped up in that. Whenever it's popped up here in the past few years, some people (ButchersApron & Frogwoman mostly I think) have always shown how it's just one or at most two clicks from whatever dodgy source someone posts up to something openly anti-semitic.


Does he actually believe and talk about conspiracy theories then? I've not seen him do that (not seen loads of his stuff tbh just the news night interviews, stuff at E15, and that trews thing).


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

Nancy_Winks said:


> Does he actually believe and talk about conspiracy theories then? I've not seen him do that (not seen loads of his stuff tbh just the news night interviews, stuff at E15, and that trews thing).



He definitely has in the past, not in the things I've seen recently which isn't everything by any means, but he did have Laurence Easeman on the panel of an event he organised very recently, I might ask Frogwoman to provide a decent link about Easeman and his dodgyness. Time will tell I guess, but atm he seems to be talking about capitalism rather than conspiracies, and it'll be great if it stays that way.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> yeah, but what's the call to action going to be? Don't vaccinate your kids, don't drink tapwater and get paranoid about planes in the sky whilst shaking your fist at the reptilian overlords who constantly disrupt your plans for freedom with their devious schemes to murder everyone (whilst never actually seeming to get round to doing any actual global genocides)... or to build something that will work to improving the deal we currently have with capital in a small or big way.
> 
> Hopefully Brand will move away from the conspiraloon shit, cos it's a dead end politically and too heavily associated with racism and fascism. To be in that culture you must at least be tolerant of racism if not actually racist. I wonder if there was a time when you could believe in the moon landings being faked and the JFK grassy knoll stuff and not be racist or into global jewish conspiracy shit, but nowadays it's all wrapped up in that. Whenever it's popped up here in the past few years, some people (ButchersApron & Frogwoman mostly I think) have always shown how it's just one or at most two clicks from whatever dodgy source someone posts up to something openly anti-semitic.



He hasn't done or said any of that from what i have seen. do you have a source for any of that, so i can see for myself?

edit to add: you have kind of answered above whilst i was posting.


----------



## Nancy_Winks (Dec 7, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Dives  back
> Posts this
> http://redstarcommando.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/we-dont-need-another-hero-or-why.html
> Dives out
> Bye


Some good points in there


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> see I can forgive brand his substance abuse, we have all been there. Or some of us have anyway. It's the thing r/w press will use to crucify him. I can't forgive his sleaze though. It's a thing given space in his booky wook.
> 
> And thats while not really fine at least he is making atempts to deal with it. Wank four times a day is how you should deal with it lest lust cloud judgement.
> 
> Regardless of that and in recognition that nobody is perfect- he is beyond not perfect. Keystage 3 communism plated up by a very compromised source. It's just asking for any informed and thinking r/w voice to tear him apart and by extension valid points he makes.




I never realised that only perfect people could have a voice...
Ya learn something new every day here...


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> He hasn't done or said any of that from what i have seen. do you have a source for any of that, so i can see for myself?
> 
> edit to add: you have kind of answered above whilst i was posting.





Just caught your edit as I was about to post  I've just found out I've got no breakfast and I'm very hungry so got to head out, frogwoman and smokedout can possibly provide some more stuff and I've not watched this vid but afaik it's Brand on David Icke's short lived tv channel:



Spoiler: david icke. urgh








quick google shows more. Links are definitely there in the recentish past.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 7, 2014)

Tapatalk was being stupid and posted to the wrong thread. Think I sorted it know


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Just caught your edit as I was about to post  I've just found out I've got no breakfast and I'm very hungry so got to head out, frogwoman and smokedout can possibly provide some more stuff and I've not watched this vid but afaik it's Brand on David Icke's short lived tv channel:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't have any problem with anything he said on the video (i stopped when it got to the icke lecture as it isn't relevant to what we are talking about)
russell brand was talking his usual stuff, he made a joke about the illuminati and lizard people, then got back onto what he was there to talk about. 

is it the spiritual stuff that is objectionable?  i personally don't have a problem with spiritual stuff, in terms of the jesus cult of "do unto others etc" it's the basis of a good way to live without harming others, its morality which is something that is certainly part and parcel of politics and indeed our everyday life. 

we are all human and as much as i want to reduce us to bags of chemicals whose sole purpose is to procreate, it is something i struggle with. we are able to question our existence and question our questioning. i'm not sure other animals can do that, i don't know if there is any evidence one way or the other. for me all that ties in to the human experience. I'm currently reading amongst other things ruby wax's sane new world. if her simplified version of how our brains see, interpret, function is close to true, well it is mind boggling the amount of information we process. I'll stop cos i think i'm wandering off on a tangent


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> Don't have any problem with anything he said on the video (i stopped when it got to the icke lecture as it isn't relevant to what we are talking about)
> russell brand was talking his usual stuff, he made a joke about the illuminati and lizard people, then got back onto what he was there to talk about.
> 
> is it the spiritual stuff that is objectionable?  i personally don't have a problem with spiritual stuff, in terms of the jesus cult of "do unto others etc" it's the basis of a good way to live without harming others, its morality which is something that is certainly part and parcel of politics and indeed our everyday life.
> ...


Just talking to an anti-semite like icke and popularising and legitimatising his anti-semitism - which is what happened and is happening right now  - is damaging enough in itself.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> Don't have any problem with anything he said on the video (i stopped when it got to the icke lecture as it isn't relevant to what we are talking about)
> russell brand was talking his usual stuff, he made a joke about the illuminati and lizard people, then got back onto what he was there to talk about.
> 
> is it the spiritual stuff that is objectionable?  i personally don't have a problem with spiritual stuff, in terms of the jesus cult of "do unto others etc" it's the basis of a good way to live without harming others, its morality which is something that is certainly part and parcel of politics and indeed our everyday life.
> ...



I was too hungry to watch the video before posting, so it might not have been what I thought it was, I'll have another look in a little bit if nobody else gets there first

edit: it's not what I thought it was, it's a video from brainfeed.ca which is a conspiraloon site "Break Free From The Slavery" goes it's tagline and oh look. illuminati, flouride etc.. etc.. can't be arsed to dig into the site. There's a few phrases that RB says that ring alarm bells but it doesn't sound full blown. Butcher's is right though of course, thoguht Brand isn't speaking to Icke in that video, I'm sure he has done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Lets be kind to all folk......they mean well....


the road to hell is paved with good intentions


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

Here you are:



Spoiler: david icke on Brand's radio show








March 2013

48sec

"I like David Icke alot, I'm into his books, I'm into his theories..."

2m 15

"david icke is a pal of mine and I think he's great"

didn't listen further tbh, Icke was also on Brand's US show around the same time according to IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2700358/


----------



## JHE (Dec 7, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Dives  back
> Posts this
> http://redstarcommando.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/we-dont-need-another-hero-or-why.html
> Dives out
> Bye



The article is plainly written by a Speegygeebee.  The Speegygeebees are a decent bunch of people and principled, but they've never really found a way of successfully spreading their brand of socialism.  I'm not at all sure they are a good guide to how to do politics.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Here you are:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




so far i think russell brand is kind of making fun with his mates, icke is even aware that they are making fun of him. i don't hear him colluding with icke at all. if you listen to it, he says he agrees with icke in that we are being manipulated, being kept on a narrow bandwidth of consciousness. after icke finishes, he concludes by saying "lets put our wheelie bins out on the street wherever we like". he is making fun of icke. listen to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> so far i think russell brand is kind of making fun with his mates, icke is even aware that they are making fun of him. i don't hear him colluding with icke at all. if you listen to it, he says he agrees with icke in that we are being manipulated, being kept on a narrow bandwidth of consciousness. after icke finishes, he concludes by saying "lets put our wheelie bins out on the street wherever we like". he is making fun of icke. listen to it.


There is years of him attending icke events, inviting him to work with him, taking his ideas seriously. It was even talked about on here years ago, including possibly funding ickes attempted antisemitic tv channel. It's all out there.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There is years of him attending icke events, inviting him to work with him, taking his ideas seriously. It was even talked about on here years ago, including possibly funding ickes attempted antisemitic tv channel. It's all out there.



if you have time listen to the show, rb is making fun of icke. you are talking about the past, we all make mistakes. fortunately for me, and presumably you, we get to make those mistakes outside of the public arena.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> if you have time listen to the show, rb is making fun of icke. you are talking about the past, we all make mistakes. fortunately for me, and presumably you, we get to make those mistakes outside of the public arena.


I have listened to it - i think i even posted it up last year. Brand is a comedian - of course he's going to try and take the piss in interviews. That's what he does. He does it with everyone not just icke. The thing is though, you don't consider giving someone millions to set up a tv  station, you don't sit through eight hour shows of theirs, you don't openly and repeatedly say that you like them, that you respect their ideas and that they should be taken seriously if you yourself are not taking those ideas seriously. And he plainly is. Not just then but right now, today. And in doing so he legitimises those views - including racist batshit nonsense. He needs to openly repudiate that stuff - but he's not going to because he has helped engineer a situation where he cannot take a step back or the whole thing will come tumbling down (that's how i think he's seeing things anyway).


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ....The thing is though, you don't consider giving someone millions to set up a tv  station, you don't sit through eight hour shows of theirs, you don't openly and repeatedly say that you like them, that you respect their ideas and that they should be taken seriously if you yourself are not taking those ideas seriously. And he plainly is. Not just then but right now, today. And in doing so he legitimises those views - including racist batshit nonsense. He needs to openly repudiate that stuff - but he's not going to because he has helped engineer a situation where he cannot take a step back or the whole thing will come tumbling down (that's how i think he's seeing things anyway).



going to make guesses here cos i am not rb and don't know what he thinks. perhaps he considered giving millions cos he agrees that we are being manipulated by a global elite, you know the lobbying, the big companies that don't pay all the taxes they should, the corrupt self seeking politicians and we need to do something about it. whatever his reasons, he didn't give the millions. i'm sure you have considered taking certain actions that may be morally or legally questionable, but decided not to. i know i have. again, we don't make those decisions in the public arena.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> yeah, but what's the call to action going to be? Don't vaccinate your kids, don't drink tapwater and get paranoid about planes in the sky whilst shaking your fist at the reptilian overlords who constantly disrupt your plans for freedom with their devious schemes to murder everyone (whilst never actually seeming to get round to doing any actual global genocides)... or to build something that will work to improving the deal we currently have with capital in a small or big way.
> 
> Hopefully Brand will move away from the conspiraloon shit, cos it's a dead end politically and too heavily associated with racism and fascism. To be in that culture you must at least be tolerant of racism if not actually racist. I wonder if there was a time when you could believe in the moon landings being faked and the JFK grassy knoll stuff and not be racist or into global jewish conspiracy shit, but nowadays it's all wrapped up in that. Whenever it's popped up here in the past few years, some people (ButchersApron & Frogwoman mostly I think) have always shown how it's just one or at most two clicks from whatever dodgy source someone posts up to something openly anti-semitic.[/





Mungy said:


> if you have time listen to the show, rb is making fun of icke. you are talking about the past, we all make mistakes. fortunately for me, and presumably you, we get to make those mistakes outside of the public arena.



Laurence Eastman, David Icke - thats probably as many conspira-anti Semites as RB needs to be associating with, at any level, before it starts to look like something other than carelessness tbh -


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> going to make guesses here cos i am not rb and don't know what he thinks. perhaps he considered giving millions cos he agrees that we are being manipulated by a global elite, you know the lobbying, the big companies that don't pay all the taxes they should, the corrupt self seeking politicians and we need to do something about it. whatever his reasons, he didn't give the millions. i'm sure you have considered taking certain actions that may be morally or legally questionable, but decided not to. i know i have. again, we don't make those decisions in the public arena.


I can honestly say i've never considered donating to or getting involved in an anti-semitic tv station or group or repeatedly bigged up the main man behind it for years on end. And if i had and had since moved on/grew up etc i would make damn sure everyone knew that i now rejected all that nonsense.  I would make of point of criticising it repeatedly and publicly. Brand has ummed and ahhed about it in a devious shifty manner rather than just coming out and saying _blimey i was a bit of   mug wasn't i? _(and let's be clear here, this wasn't Brand as a teenager, this was a grown man in his mid 30s) which i think pretty clearly harms him and has the potential to do wider damage to people and things entirely unconnected with this stuff that he chooses to get involved with.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

Would it be acceptable to appear on nick griffins radio show and take the piss in a fun jokey way? Oh i was _just joking_ so it's fine


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I can honestly say i've never considered donating to or getting involved in an anti-semitic tv station or group or repeatedly bigged up the main man behind it for years on end. And if i had and had since moved on/grew up etc i would make damn sure everyone knew that i now rejected all that nonsense.  I would make of point of criticising it repeatedly and publicly. Brand has ummed and ahhed about it in a devious shifty manner rather than just coming out and saying _blimey i was a bit of   mug wasn't i? _(and let's be clear here, this wasn't Brand as a teenager, this was a grown man in his mid 30s) which i think pretty clearly harms him and has the potential to do wider damage to people and things entirely unconnected with this stuff that he chooses to get involved with.



Also doing untold damage by legitimising ickes antisemitism and bringing it to the mainstream


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Also doing untold damage by legitimising ickes antisemitism and bringing it to the mainstream


Yup. There's only so much benefit of the doubt you can give Brand before you have to question his judgment *at the very least*.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

who is this eastman bloke? i've not heard of him before this thread. google search proved inconclusive.


frogwoman said:


> Would it be acceptable to appear on nick griffins radio show and take the piss in a fun jokey way? Oh i was _just joking_ so it's fine



rb on the icke tv video, didn't take the piss. rb on his own radio show did take the piss. to answer your question, it wouldn't be appropriate for you to appear on nick griffin radio in a jokey kind of way, as i understand you to be opposed to the views of nick griffin and don't see how that would fit my perception of your online persona.


----------



## campanula (Dec 7, 2014)

I have never seen nor read anything of RB's oeuvre having been vaguely aware of him as a nitwit with a massive sense of his own importance...but even if he was saintly and virtuous, I would still query this whole campaign. I think that wealthy and connected people who genuinely wish to 'do good',  fail by inserting themselves in the centre of campaigns which always raises the suspicion that this is really just self-aggrandisment and ego-pumping. The absolute focus on fame and celebrity as any driver of action or social justice just completely overrides the 'message'. As far as I can see, the sole focus of all this activity has been a sort of manic self-promotion which ultimately just causes more harm than good to any of these so-called social actions and mainly irritates the fuck out of me.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> who is this eastman bloke? i've not heard of him before this thread. google search proved inconclusive.
> 
> .


Here


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here


thanks, i had the wrong name


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> who is this eastman bloke? i've not heard of him before this thread. google search proved inconclusive.
> 
> 
> rb on the icke tv video, didn't take the piss. rb on his own radio show did take the piss. to answer your question, it wouldn't be appropriate for you to appear on nick griffin radio in a jokey kind of way, as i understand you to be opposed to the views of nick griffin and don't see how that would fit my perception of your online persona.



Would it be acceptable to appear on his show at all? And big him up going this guy's my mate and his views should be listened to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 7, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> yeah, you ran that line already. He's probably just terribly cynical. After all, you seem to think so.



I doubt he's cynical. Thing is, he doesn't need to be. He's perfectly well-aware of how the media functions, and of what stimuli work. A moment's thought would have/will have told him how this all could go, so some people are asking themselves (rightly or wrongly) "who benefits?".


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Would it be acceptable to appear on his show at all? And big him up going this guy's my mate and his views should be listened to?


rb  does mention it at the end of the radio show, the things he agrees with, he certainly doesn't say everything icke says should be taken as gospel - that is my understanding of it.

if you are talking about you appearing on the nick griffin show, i can't imagine you bigging him up at all. it  just doesn't fit with who you appear to be, so i would wonder what was going on, and had i the opportunity i would ask you why you did it. if you appeared on the nick griffin show and shown him to be the arse that he is , then yes it would be fitting with who i perceive you to be.

edited: dodgy spelling


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> rb  does mention it at the end of the radio show, the things he agrees with, he certainly doesn't say everything icke says should be taken as gospel - that is my understanding of it.
> 
> if you are talking about you appearing on the nick griffin show, i can't imagine you bigging him up at all. it  just doesn't fit with who you appear to be, so i would wonder what was going on, and had i the opportunity i would ask you why you did it. if you appeared on the nick griffin show and shown him to be the arse that he is , then yes it would be fitting with who i perceive you to be.
> 
> edited: dodgy spelling



Well i don't think it would be acceptable to appear on something like that at all. He's a man in his 30s and should know better.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Well i don't think it would be acceptable to appear on something like that at all. He's a man in his 30s and should know better.


can't speak for rb, only myself. i was 27/28 before i got clean from being a drug addict. read all kinds of stuff afterwards looking for a spiritual fix, i liked icke in those early days, until he started on about the lizard thing, then it became hard to trust him especially as he didn't (don't know if he now does) cite his sources or reference them. after that i found urban75 via another forum at the age of 34 in the heyday of conspiracy threads where there was much debate, vitriol and threads about dehydrated water. my education is still very much a work in progress at the age of 44. i have learned much on urban. 

rb's age or mine has little to do with how wise we are. i think i am older than dc, but i doubt very much i will have that kind of breadth and depth of knowledge even when i am older and greyer than i am now.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

He's in a position of huge privilege and should not be using it to apologise and normalise ickes racist bullshit or to turn everything into a huge publicity seeking tool.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> He's in a position of huge privilege and should not be using it to apologise and normalise ickes racist bullshit or to turn everything into a huge publicity seeking tool.



i don't see where he is normalising ickes racist bullshit, but i will concede that i might not be seeing it right now, and i could have an epiphany where it becomes clear.

he was a normal person before he found fame and fortune, suppose it was you in his position - i mean the fame and fortune bit, not necessarily any potentially dodgy political views. would you support things, would you retreat from public life? is it possible to be famous and be active politically without toxifying the things you support?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> i don't see where he is normalising ickes racist bullshit, but i will concede that i might not be seeing it right now, and i could have an epiphany where it becomes clear.
> 
> he was a normal person before he found fame and fortune, suppose it was you in his position - i mean the fame and fortune bit, not necessarily any potentially dodgy political views. would you support things, would you retreat from public life? is it possible to be famous and be active politically without toxifying the things you support?


yes


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

Mungy said:


> i don't see where he is normalising ickes racist bullshit, but i will concede that i might not be seeing it right now, and i could have an epiphany where it becomes clear.
> 
> he was a normal person before he found fame and fortune, suppose it was you in his position - i mean the fame and fortune bit, not necessarily any potentially dodgy political views. would you support things, would you retreat from public life?* is it possible to be famous and be active politically without toxifying the things you support?*



Yes, but it either needs to be a particular type of thing, where publicity for the cause is pretty much all that is needed, or the famous person very much needs to be involved as a person and eschew their fame. 
I think famous people need to go about these things quietly tbh, why Bill Gates comes off as being decent with his malaria fight funds, when geldof/bono come off as wankers doing similar for ebola.
Or you do something like rock against racism, whereby you take the thing you are famous for and you keep doing that and use it to financially or culturally support a movement rather than begin involved with groups as a famous activist.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 7, 2014)

turning up quietly without a camera crew and with a chequebook would be a good place to start


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

cash rather than cheque book, but yeah, i guess that would help


----------



## Sue (Dec 7, 2014)

A small example of how the involvement of celebrities changes the media focus.

A friend's been involved in a community art project for the last year or so. Russell Brand turned up a couple of weeks ago (with the local Labour councillor) to open it. I've just googled the art project. It got some coverage in the local press but for them the interesting thing was that RB turned up rather than the art project itself. Likewise with the photos used to illustrate the story -- mainly of RB rather than of the people involved or of the art project.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 7, 2014)

Sue said:


> A small example of how the involvement of celebrities changes the media focus.
> 
> A friend's been involved in a community art project for the last year or so. Russell Brand turned up a couple of weeks ago (with the local Labour councillor) to open it. I've just googled the art project. It got some coverage in the local press but for them the interesting thing was that RB turned up rather than the art project itself. Likewise with the photos used to illustrate the story -- mainly of RB rather than of the people involved or of the art project.


Got a link?


----------



## Sue (Dec 7, 2014)

http://hackneypost.co.uk/2014/11/10/russell-brand-unveils-mosaic/

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...nch_of_extraordinary_hackney_mosaic_1_3846034

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/11/14/hackney-mosaic-project-unveiled-russell-brand-hackney-downs/

As far as my friend's aware -- and he was there every week -- this was the first time RB had been there.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

Also hasn't he always had a bit of reputation for being a creepy sexist?


----------



## The Pale King (Dec 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Also hasn't he always had a bit of reputation for being a creepy sexist?



He does indeed: http://www.thegrindstone.com/2012/0...ardrobe-girl-but-dont-worry-it-was-funny-274/


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2014)

wasn't that particular story shown to be made up?


----------



## The Pale King (Dec 7, 2014)

killer b said:


> wasn't that particular story shown to be made up?



Was it? I hadn't heard that - the reporting of the incident stuck in my mind, but I didn't know it had been shown to be false. Apologies to Mr Brand if I have inadvertently cast unwarranted aspersions on his personage (parklife)


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2014)

I can't remember the details, but I'm sure that one is dodgy. 

He has however always had a bit of a reputation for being a creepy sexist. He admitted as much around the time he started political activity in earnest, and promised to try and change. I've not been following how successful he's been.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 7, 2014)

from a link in the comments



> I was surprised to read, just before our interview, tabloid reports that he'd been in an altercation with Russell Brand on a film set. Reportedly, Brand had repeatedly told a young assistant that he wouldn't film another frame until she'd shown him her breasts; and Connolly had stepped in to tick him off for harassment. Why did he…?
> 
> "That [widely reported] story," says Connolly evenly, "is a total invention. A complete fabrication. It's total bollocks. It never happened. Russell was very well-behaved, and I found him very interesting." Did he find him funny? "Oh aye. I really enjoyed his company. I liked his vocabulary, and his stance. He poses and… stances around all the time, and I like that."


----------



## treelover (Dec 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Not all Greens are bad, the bloke that runs the Another Angry Voice blog is a Green and most of his stuff is pretty good but all the Greens on here seem shit



Becoming more concerned about Greens, one I am aware of, a Doctor, has described people coming to her clinic as "being on benefits and swinging the lead"another endorsed NL's workfare and may still support these schemes.


----------



## The Pale King (Dec 7, 2014)

Cheers for the link free spirit and cheers for the heads up KillerB


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> Becoming more concerned about Greens, one I am aware of, a Doctor, has described people coming to her clinic as "being on benefits and swinging the lead"another endorsed NL's workfare and may still support these schemes.


who'd have thought it?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> Becoming more concerned about Greens, one I am aware of, a Doctor, has described people coming to her clinic as "being on benefits and swinging the lead"another endorsed NL's workfare and may still support these schemes.



Is that one of the councillors in Sheffield?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 7, 2014)

omg this is gold, from the Sheffield Green Party


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

free spirit said:


> from a link in the comments



But it's not the only story involving him and sexism though.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> But it's not the only story involving him and sexism though.


not saying it is, nor particularly defending him, just think people should be attacked using real incidents that actually happened rather than bollocks made up by the sun.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 7, 2014)

The Pale King said:


> Was it? I hadn't heard that - the reporting of the incident stuck in my mind, but I didn't know it had been shown to be false. Apologies to Mr Brand if I have inadvertently cast unwarranted aspersions on his personage (parklife)



" Totally stupid anti Brand story cribbed from The Sun turns out of be utter bollocks" shocker.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

free spirit said:


> not saying it is, nor particularly defending him, just think people should be attacked using real incidents that actually happened rather than bollocks made up by the sun.



I wasn't referring to a particular story when I said that. Just saying that he has a reputation for being sexist based on things he's said in interviews etc.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 7, 2014)

Sue said:


> http://hackneypost.co.uk/2014/11/10/russell-brand-unveils-mosaic/
> 
> http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...nch_of_extraordinary_hackney_mosaic_1_3846034
> 
> ...


Well that looks like he was invited to unveil it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I wasn't referring to a particular story when I said that. Just saying that he has a reputation for being sexist based on things he's said in interviews etc.


his little contretemps with andrew sachs didn't show him in a very revolutionary light


----------



## Sue (Dec 7, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Well that looks like he was invited to unveil it.



I have no idea if he was invited and didn't say he wasn't -- though it would be interesting to know, if he was, who did the inviting.

My point was that his presence shifted the focus of the story from something local people had been working on for a long time to 'Russell Brand turned up'.

Compared to people fighting eviction etc this is obviously pretty trivial but does illustrate the point made by people above.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 7, 2014)

Brand lol. People just love having leaders. If they've already got stardust they can simply step into that role. 

He's got the political coherency of a stoned six former. I guess most of his followers come from that age group.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2014)

anyway if Cheesypoof's right that yer man only gets political 2/3 of the way through a book called 'revolution' i don't think marx or engels need quiver in their graves about being superseded.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Brand lol. People just love having leaders. If they've already got stardust they can simply step into that role.
> 
> He's got the political coherency of a stoned six former. I guess most of his followers come from that age group.


that's unfair. many stoned sixth-formers have a more coherent political outlook than brand.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

Not sure 'people' do, most people I know couldn't really give a shit about him, as opposed to the issues he's raised (which they were discussing before he came along) 

The people who seem to like him the most as I said, seem to be overexcited trots


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 7, 2014)

and excitable greens and liberals


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 7, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that's unfair. many stoned sixth-formers have a more coherent political outlook than brand.



True.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and excitable greens and liberals



He's the new Bragg. Similar surname structures.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> omg this is gold, from the Sheffield Green Party




Lol so patronising


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and excitable greens and liberals


Anecdotal data (people who post about him positively on my facebook feed) suggests a strong crossover with people who voted Lib Dem at the last general election.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 7, 2014)

killer b said:


> Anecdotal data (people who post about him positively on my facebook feed) suggests a strong crossover with people who voted Lib Dem at the last general election.



AKA 'the credulous'


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2014)

Not really. Just people casting around for answers and ways out, like the rest of us.


----------



## rover07 (Dec 7, 2014)

I'm really looking forward to the new IWCA column in the Sun.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 7, 2014)

nother 3 pages then?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2014)

rover07 said:


> I'm really looking forward to the new IWCA column in the Sun.


What a silly person you're turning out to be.

Do this Russel Brand:

Commit to funding a proper conference of all the various groups fighting housing sell offs, rents hikes, bad management and upkeep etc and to funding transport, expenses, child-care for at least two delegates from each group. That way a step can be taken towards the sort of linking up of social housing, private housing anti-bailiff-action, occupations etc type stuff and bringing the social power of the people in these groups and campaigns to the fore. This needn't be in London, in fact it will probably need a number of all across all regions.

You, of course, will not be attending any of them as on the day of each conference you will be doing one of a series of massive benefit shows (and i mean a proper full two show of you, not 10 minutes from all your mates with you hosting-  you will have already organised your mates to be doing something similar in other parts of the country) in order to provide every single new group that starts fighting with a starter-pack. One every two weeks for a year would be a good start.

I suspect you may also have to contribute to a number of local travel funds so that campaigners in one of part of town can go and support others when required.

You will also be looking for suitable property in every city in the country to turn into the sort of self-funding type thing you have planned for your cafe/meeting place for people dealing with addiction issues but for housing/debt/community type stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> Anecdotal data (people who post about him positively on my facebook feed) suggests a strong crossover with people who voted Lib Dem at the last general election.



I wonder what trevhagl thinks of Brand?


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2014)

he loves him iirc


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> he loves him iirc



...confirming that suggestion of a strong Lib-Dem crossover!


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 8, 2014)

He likes to read The Sun too.


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2014)

No. Fuck off.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 9, 2014)

isn't keiser one of alex jones' buddies?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 9, 2014)

Yes


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 9, 2014)

Is he? Not sure about that.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 9, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Is he? Not sure about that.



He is, and is full of shit / a massive homophobe


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 9, 2014)

Is he? A massive homophobe that is. He may well be full of shit.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 9, 2014)

Yep 

http://mattuna.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/keiser-retort/

He propagandises for the Putin government and I know that he made some pretty nasty tweets a while back can't find them though so that link showing him shilling for Putin will have to do


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 9, 2014)

That's a weird string of tweets alright.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Yep
> 
> http://mattuna.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/keiser-retort/
> 
> He propagandises for the Putin government and I know that he made some pretty nasty tweets a while back can't find them though so that link showing him shilling for Putin will have to do





I only really came accross him on RT, and his show is v watchable, a slightly unhnged, incessant assault on zomby - finance capitalism, with the benefit of an insiders perspective - as with any show on RT, i get back to the washing up/blasting out Cher LLoyd if he gets on to Russia itself, but he rarely seems to ( assume he knows he's on too thin ice there)


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Yep
> 
> http://mattuna.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/keiser-retort/
> 
> He propagandises for the Putin government and I know that he made some pretty nasty tweets a while back can't find them though so that link showing him shilling for Putin will have to do


 

He's a shady bitcoin boosting wheeler dealer cunt.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 9, 2014)

So....Brand is a massive homophobe and pro-Putin then?

Sometimes you lot are embarrassing...constantly implying a message of unity and egalitarianism but in your posts hateful, arbitrary and full of spite.   Certainly no sign of the former.

I seriously have my doubts about you.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 9, 2014)

Brand is _exceptionally careless_ about who he promotes, and his promotion of certain people causes real harm.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 9, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Brand is _exceptionally careless_ about who he promotes, and his promotion of certain people causes real harm.


Maybe he's not a judgemental cunt who doesn't judge others exponentially in comparison to himself.

His last three trews were about torture, tax-dodging and Irish water.

Anyway...that's not important...apparently someone said he dumped his wife by text!   And he had sex and took drugs!

Here he is in yesterday's trews.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 10, 2014)

copliker said:


> View attachment 64812
> 
> He's a shady bitcoin boosting wheeler dealer cunt.


That is a very lame tweet.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Anyway...that's not important...apparently someone said he dumped his wife by text!   And he had sex and took drugs!


what's this got to do with any of the criticism on this thread?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 10, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Maybe he's not a judgemental cunt who doesn't judge others exponentially in comparison to himself.
> 
> His last three trews were about torture, tax-dodging and Irish water.
> 
> ...



We wouldn't want to be _judgemental_ about anti-Semites and homophobes or anything.


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> He is, and is full of shit / a massive homophobe



Regarding the full of shit bit, back in his 'Karma Banque Radio' podcast days, he said that Hitler was a socialist, and banged on about The Road To Serfdom.


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2014)

Apparently both Russell Brand and Nigel Farage are on Question Time this week.

According to reports that I haven't read properly yet, he also got in hot water for tweeting a Daily Mail journalists phone number.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2014)

elbows said:


> Regarding the full of shit bit, back in his 'Karma Banque Radio' podcast days, he said that Hitler was a socialist, and banged on about The Road To Serfdom.



as someone who instinctively likes Brand, but can't dispel a load of doubts / misgivings, and therefore sits v much in the middle, you'll forgive me asking you for one single iota of evidence to back up the two above claims ? ( if you mean he said either in an approving manner) .


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Maybe he's not a judgemental cunt who doesn't judge others exponentially in comparison to himself.
> 
> His last three trews were about torture, tax-dodging and Irish water.
> 
> ...



Excellent - his hanging around with and endorsing bit-coin homophobes, anti-semites and open far-righters is a bonus, a good thing, _because he's not being judgmental.
_
I think he should be judgmental i think he should judge peoples views.  But we know that you don't - as long as they say one thing that you agree with they can do anything they like. They can smear a woman as a slut so bad and so relentlessly that she has to leave the country - in fact you'll join in with the smearing - as long as the person dictating the smearing says they are a socialist.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 10, 2014)

cantsin said:


> as someone who instinctively likes Brand, but can't dispel a load of doubts / misgivings, and therefore sits v much in the middle, you'll forgive me asking you for one single iota of evidence to back up the two above claims ? ( if you mean he said either in an approving manner) .


i think elbows was talking about max keiser, not brand, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if max was or is an anarcho capitalist


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2014)

Also he has a name that sounds like a proto-fascist freikorp leader.


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2014)

elbows said:


> Regarding the full of shit bit, back in his 'Karma Banque Radio' podcast days, he said that Hitler was a socialist, and banged on about The Road To Serfdom.


He's essentially the worst kind of smarmy libertarian fuckwit.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2014)

BigTom said:


> i think elbows was talking about max keiser, not brand, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if max was or is an anarcho capitalist



ah, makes much more sense , apols to Elbows.

yep, easy to sea how Keisers constant spiel against the banks post crash cld be based on purist Hayekian free market /  anti bailout credo . Add in fervent anti statism, anti US military interventionism, pro individualism , and he can sit there ranting in the background on RT and it all sounds kinds kinda engaging regardless. 

Weird times.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2014)

_Never heard about, won't think about russel brand and david irving
max kesier and alex jones
david icke,  george galloway, lyndsy german 
and Abby Martin
Julian assange and ben fellows
Chris spivey, tommy sheridan
Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad


Shut it You don't understand it
Shut it That's not the way I planned it
Shut your fucking mouth 'til you know the truth._


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2014)

JC, give Butchers his account back.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent - his hanging around with and endorsing bit-coin homophobes, anti-semites and open far-righters is a bonus, a good thing, _because he's not being judgmental.
> _
> I think he should be judgmental i think he should judge peoples views.  But we know that you don't - as long as they say one thing that you agree with they can do anything they like. They can smear a woman as a slut so bad and so relentlessly that she has to leave the country - in fact you'll join in with the smearing - as long as the person dictating the smearing says they are a socialist.



What is the slut shaming thing referring to butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> What is the slut shaming thing referring to butchers?


Katrine Trolle - and this scumbag dexterTCN gleefully joined in.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 10, 2014)

I see RB is in Dublin ready to rally with the 40,000 + marchers against water charges...

Not a good turn out.......



Then again..it is raining........

...........again


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I see RB is in Dublin ready to rally with the 40,000 + marchers against water charges...
> 
> Not a good turn out.......
> 
> ...




From little acorns and all that. Dublin is no stranger to small protests and acts of defiance become something much bigger. Maybe one day there will be a statue of RB on O' Connell St...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2014)

Then we will have failed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2014)

there should be a statue in dublin by the little bridge over the tolka after kennedy's pub as you go up towards the skylon hotel. perhaps an 18" figurine of krtek.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Never heard about, won't think about russel brand and david irving
> max kesier and alex jones
> david icke,  george galloway, lyndsy german
> and Abby Martin
> ...



 was hoping Abby Martin wasn't included in this shit show ...


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I see RB is in Dublin ready to rally with the 40,000 + marchers against water charges...
> 
> Not a good turn out.......
> 
> ...



The book of face is claiming sixty thou in Merrion square alone, though. . .


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 10, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> The book of face is claiming sixty thou in Merrion square alone, though. . .



Up to 100,000 now..According to Joe Duffy


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Then we will have failed.



"we"


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 10, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> From little acorns and all that. Dublin is no stranger to small protests and acts of defiance become something much bigger. Maybe one day there will be a statue of RB on O' Connell St...




People coming from all over Ireland  according to radio reports. Pensioners out in force.  Sinead o Connor is due to  arrive around 4 pm and rallies will continue til 7...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> "we"


Yes. We - there's more to this earth than you.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 10, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> "we"



Executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic manouevre.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 10, 2014)




----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I see RB is in Dublin ready to rally with the 40,000 + marchers against water charges...
> 
> Not a good turn out.......
> 
> ...



40,000 on a working day, isn't that an Ok number?


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> People coming from all over Ireland  according to radio reports. Pensioners out in force. * Sinead o Connor is due to  arrive around 4 pm* and rallies will continue til 7...



She has just joined SF and is already demanding Adams goes..


----------



## Limerick Red (Dec 10, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


>



I see me father in law made it up to Dublin then!


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 10, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> I see me father in law made it up to Dublin then!



Oh feck, there's a whole clan of ye feckers?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 10, 2014)

treelover said:


> 40,000 on a working day, isn't that an Ok number?



...... 100,000 is better 



treelover said:


> She has just joined SF and is already demanding Adams goes..



I remember she was a priest too .. once..for a while. 
She's a great singer.... mad as a box of frogs .... and people like her honesty. But I doubt she'll push Adams out.


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> The book of face is claiming sixty thou in Merrion square alone, though. . .


I'm just back from it. No idea what the numbers were except it was very big. O'Connell Bridge was still blocked when I left.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2014)

shallow, venal dick .



*Max Keiser* ‏@maxkeiser  Dec 6
I think all the political problems in UK politics like #*NewEraEstate* #Westbrook due to failure to disrupt model like Uber, Airbnb disrupt.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent - his hanging around with and endorsing bit-coin homophobes, anti-semites and open far-righters is a bonus, a good thing, _because he's not being judgmental.
> _
> I think he should be judgmental i think he should judge peoples views.  But we know that you don't - as long as they say one thing that you agree with they can do anything they like. They can smear a woman as a slut so bad and so relentlessly that she has to leave the country - in fact you'll join in with the smearing - as long as the person dictating the smearing says they are a socialist.




If you have one iota of proof to back that up, feel free.  (That I've been involved in smearing any woman...or indeed used the word slut or anything similar....you certainly seem comfortable using it.)

Otherwise...as usual...you're just a loud-mouthed cunt shouting out bad words.

Always trying to escalate, insult and smear.   Predictable, childish and ineffectual 

Just to recap...I smear women and call them sluts, right?   

Go you, butchers!

You're the model on which action should be based!


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes. We - there's more to this earth than you.



What are you on about? 

Your snide knee jerk comments aside, I'm saying that the likes of Brand who are straightforward, accessible and un-patronising  attract more people than insidious, infighting, dick swinging know it all types who alienate people who want change and justice but are wary of hectoring urban warriors.

But yes, I'd say you have failed. Utterly. You are the crude, pompous tub thumper who have nothing but bile to offer. RB may not be your cup of revolutionary tea but by christ, he's got people interested.

Now, back to your cardigans and angry rhetoric, comrade.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What are you on about?
> 
> Your snide knee jerk comments aside, I'm saying that the likes of Brand who are straightforward, accessible and un-patronising  attract more people than insidious, infighting, dick swinging know it all types who alienate people who want change and justice but are wary of hectoring urban warriors.
> 
> ...


i wonder whether andrew sachs shares your view of brand as straightforward, accessible and unpatronising. at least brand now knows that the money he's shovelled to public relations men wasn't wholly wasted now he's persuaded one credulous twat here (that's you, krtek) he's worth listening to.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What are you on about?
> 
> Your snide knee jerk comments aside, I'm saying that the likes of Brand who are straightforward, accessible and un-patronising  attract more people than insidious, infighting, dick swinging know it all types who alienate people who want change and justice but are wary of hectoring urban warriors.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the victory will belong to the snivelling little lick spittles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> What are you on about?
> 
> Your snide knee jerk comments aside, I'm saying that the likes of Brand who are straightforward, accessible and un-patronising  attract more people than insidious, infighting, dick swinging know it all types who alienate people who want change and justice but are wary of hectoring urban warriors.
> 
> ...


the only change you want is the sort that you get at the bar.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

This really isn't much to do with urban. Most people think he is a bit of a joke.


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> escalate, insult and smear.


your main input to the thread the last few days has been doing exactly this. Expect to get it back in kind.


----------



## rekil (Dec 11, 2014)

What's with the cardigan shaming?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> This really isn't much to do with urban. Most people think he is a bit of a joke.



I'd have to say i think yre wrong on both counts, by a long way.

undeniably/uncontestably a lot to do with Urban, and the subjects endlessly discussed.

And a fair few  people on here might think "he's a bit of joke " ( might need a poll on this ) , and the Sun / DM brigade might agree, but there's a lot of folk in between who I suspect don't, and they're an important constituency right now, could be a very important one in the future.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 11, 2014)

talk about morbid symptoms - Brand and Farage - has it come to this?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

cantsin said:
			
		

> I'd have to say i think yre wrong on both counts, by a long way.
> 
> undeniably/uncontestably a lot to do with Urban, and the subjects endlessly discussed.
> 
> And a fair few  people on here might think "he's a bit of joke " ( might need a poll on this ) , and the Sun / DM brigade might agree, but there's a lot of folk in between who I suspect don't, and they're an important constituency right now, could be a very important one in the future.



Fair but I don't really know anyone in real life who thinks he is some sort of messiah or anything.


----------



## gosub (Dec 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> talk about morbid symptoms - Brand and Farage - has it come to this?



will be interesting, what with the live audience share decided by Parliamentary seats (or however).


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

Also plenty of people don't like him and found him annoying as a comedian before he got involved in politics. A lot of people thought he was a shit comedian before and probably do now.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 11, 2014)

gosub said:


> will be interesting, what with the live audience share decided by Parliamentary seats (or however).


It could be car crash telly.


----------



## gosub (Dec 11, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It could be car crash telly.


what everyone is hoping for.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

He's more famous as a comedian than a politician, loads of people didn't like him before and won't now, plus the schsgate thing put a lot of people off him. Loads of people dislike him for reasons that are nothing to do with politics.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Also plenty of people don't like him and found him annoying as a comedian before he got involved in politics. A lot of people thought he was a shit comedian before and probably do now.



there's certainly a good chance he's not the messiah, but personally think we was a really decent, thought provoking  comedian more recently, ( in the context of headline/big arena Michael Mackintyre/John Bishop boots stamping on the human face forever types ) and commendably off his rocker (though pretty exhausting )  MTV goon in the old days ( )


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

Not sure prank calling rape lines etc can be termed thought provoking


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

I know a fair few who like him speaking out. I guess they're happy that at least one celeb is taking a stance other than the status quo. I don't think they've really thought through the implications of his unsolicited overtures towards these campaigns.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I know a fair few who like him speaking out. I guess they're happy that at least one celeb is taking a stance other than the status quo. I don't think they've really thought through the implications of his unsolicited overtures towards these campaigns.



Yep, me too.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Not sure prank calling rape lines etc can be termed thought provoking



hes done all sorts of idiotic things, up to and including becoming a smack addict, and puts his hands up to it all.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

That's ok then.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

cantsin said:


> hes done all sorts of idiotic things, up to and including becoming a smack addict, and puts his hands up to it all.



My point is that loads of people dislike him for his tv/comedy career.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2014)

copliker said:


> What's with the cardigan shaming?



krtek is obviously knitwear-ambivalent, and exercising his non-knitwearing privilege, rather than checking it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

I'm not skinny enough to look hip in a cardy.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the only change you want is the sort that you get at the bar.



From the guy who'd probably be hiding behind his bigger mate as he said such a thing.

It doesn't matter what I want; it matters to a lot of people out there who would want change but people like you and your hectoring master put them off voicing their concerns.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah, the victory will belong to the snivelling little lick spittles.



Is that really how you see ordinary people who want change but not via the earnest shrieking as so often seen here?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> My point is that loads of people dislike him for his tv/comedy career.



so to conclude : "he's not the messiah" and "loads of people dislike him" . Fair do's.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2014)

copliker said:


> What's with the cardigan shaming?



I think - going by his past mad rants at me anyway - that's it's something about Darth Vader and me/us representing the father he has to rhetorically kill now that he rejects our evil ways. He's mixed it up with Peter rejecting Christ thrice and brand now being _The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner _though


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2014)

gosub said:


> will be interesting, what with the live audience share decided by Parliamentary seats (or however).


 
I suspect Farage + others will keep going for the ' how rich are you/ hypocrite' line on RB, and it's going to be a a tough gig for him.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Is that really how you see ordinary people who want change but not via the earnest shrieking as so often seen here?


No. It's how I see people who think change can come about through some poster boy who is entirely unconnected to the interests they think he represents.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think - going by his past mad rants at me anyway - that's it's something about Darth Vader and me/us representing the father he has to rhetorically kill now that he rejects our evil ways. He's mixed it up with Peter rejecting Christ thrice and brand now being _The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner _though



How ironic. I'm offering up my tuppence worth on the popularity of Brand and why he might appeal to ordinary folks and yet you and your familiar persist in making it all about me. Brand speaks to a lot of people out there, including those who may not be as well versed in change as others  here are. Despite his celeb status (or maybe because of it) he's awakening a zeitgeist, a possible shift of consciousness and conscience that could lead to something good. But please, carry on the ad hominems and accusations, rather than attempt dialogue. It's what you do best.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

It's like having another Bono.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> No. It's how I see people who think change can come about through some poster boy who is entirely unconnected to the interests they think he represents.


"poster boy". How lazy. And all those hundreds of thousands of us, maybe millions. I guess we're sheep, as well.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's like having another Bono.


It's nothing of the sort. Sure, he'll eventually be shot down by the warring, infighting left and corporate media combined but in the meantime, there's hope.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> How ironic. I'm offering up my tuppence worth on the popularity of Brand and why he might appeal to ordinary folks and yet you and your familiar persist in making it all about me. Brand speaks to a lot of people out there, including those who may not be as well versed in change as others  here are. Despite his celeb status (or maybe because of it) he's awakening a zeitgeist, a possible shift of consciousness and conscience that could lead to something good. But please, carry on the ad hominems and accusations, rather than attempt dialogue. It's what you do best.


Kill the cardigan inside yourself krtek.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 11, 2014)




----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> "poster boy". How lazy. And all those hundreds of thousands of us, maybe millions. I guess we're sheep, as well.


Nah. Just boring old consumers.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> "poster boy". How lazy. And all those hundreds of thousands of us, maybe millions. I guess we're sheep, as well.


Do it quick before it's too late!


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

I'm looking for an off-the-shelf revolutionary myself for my stocking this year. Any suggestions? I'd like an action one with plenty of accessories if at all poss.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> From the guy who'd probably be hiding behind his bigger mate as he said such a thing.
> 
> It doesn't matter what I want; it matters to a lot of people out there who would want change but people like you and your hectoring master put them off voicing their concerns.


you're very good at supporting sexists. have you ever tried supporting someone who wants positive change for everyone, whether they've a cock or not?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm looking for an off-the-shelf revolutionary myself for my stocking this year. Any suggestions? I'd like an action one with plenty of accessories if at all poss.


have you tried the all-action lucy parsons? or voltairine de cleyre?


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do it quick before it's too late!



So, you still won't discuss the topic? You're correct though; it's not all about me. But you seem hell bent on making it so. 

RB is making waves. They may not foam to your precise elitist requirements and you can jeer all you like but here is someone raising awareness & is lucky to have a "celeb" status platform to do so which elicits a lot of response. And you can't see any good in it, whatsoever.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

I want stardust.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> So, you still won't discuss the topic? You're correct though; it's not all about me. But you seem hell bent on making it so.
> 
> RB is making waves. They may not foam to your precise elitist requirements and you can jeer all you like but here is someone raising awareness & is lucky to have a "celeb" status platform to do so which elicits a lot of response. And you can't see any good in it, whatsoever.


yes. he's raising awareness. but what is he raising awareness of?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> So, you still won't discuss the topic? You're correct though; it's not all about me. But you seem hell bent on making it so.
> 
> RB is making waves. They may not foam to your precise elitist requirements and you can jeer all you like but here is someone raising awareness & is lucky to have a "celeb" status platform to do so which elicits a lot of response. And you can't see any good in it, whatsoever.


Here's someone that hasn't bothered to read the thread but would rather jump to conclusions from their own rabid prejudices and then spew them all yet another thread. Just stop doing this.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> So, you still won't discuss the topic? You're correct though; it's not all about me. But you seem hell bent on making it so.
> 
> RB is making waves. They may not foam to your precise elitist requirements and you can jeer all you like but here is someone raising awareness & is lucky to have a "celeb" status platform to do so which elicits a lot of response. And you can't see any good in it, whatsoever.


If I get my booky wook for christmas and you get his dvd can we do swapsies for a bit?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. he's raising awareness. but what is he raising awareness of?


I'll have a stab at this. Is the answer Himself?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'll have a stab at this. Is the answer Himself?


it's not bloody positive change, that's for sure.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'll have a stab at this. Is the answer Himself?



easy thing to throw at him - The Sun /DM / assorted wrong uns doing  so all the time - but am pretty sure E15 Mums / New Era campaign wldnt agree - the One Show last night managed to not mention RB until the end of really decent , primetime piece on New Era ( very unusual piece for them )  - you knew they were there ( to some degree ) cos of him, but he'd obviously ( and v rightly ) declined to go on it = NE tenants get another serious little boost to the campaign . Definitely all a bit more Soc of the Spectacle than What Is to Be Done, but positive nonetheless.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Dec 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> have you tried the all-action lucy parsons? or voltairine de cleyre?


I thought they were dead? Or do you hand out tracts by them when you're not wittering on here?


Pickman's model said:


> yes. he's raising awareness. but what is he raising awareness of?


you're the person who decides, then? You only favour those who come with a fully-formed manifesto ratified by you? Asking questions isn't good enough, he must supply THE answer, too?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

The reason why he doesn't just get on stage, call the middle classes cunts and then fuck off home like Bill Hicks or George Carlin is because he isn't as funny as them. He needs something more. To become John Lennon. And get into Jemima Khan's knickers.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> I thought they were dead? Or do you hand out tracts by them when you're not wittering on here?
> 
> you're the person who decides, then? You only favour those who come with a fully-formed manifesto ratified by you? Asking questions isn't good enough, he must supply THE answer, too?


Moctor Herbz? Or Boresome Wells?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> I thought they were dead? Or do you hand out tracts by them when you're not wittering on here?


and what if they are dead?





> you're the person who decides, then? You only favour those who come with a fully-formed manifesto ratified by you? Asking questions isn't good enough, he must supply THE answer, too?


if he's a sexist pig then it's unlikely the answer's he comes out with are going to be that useful.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

Shocking misuse of the apostrophe there.


----------



## caleb (Dec 11, 2014)

Farage and Brand are two sides of the same populist, right-wing coin.

Actually with his willingness to be an apologist for antisemite like David Icke, what's stopping Brand from becoming the British Dieudonne?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2014)

caleb said:


> Farage and Brand are two sides of the same populist, right-wing coin.
> 
> Actually with his willingness to be an apologist for antisemite like David Icke, what's stopping Brand from becoming the British Dieudonne?



silly


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

He does have documented excursions into bizarre-ville though. And not just the odd fun weekend.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

Wasn't dieudonne an antisemite from the beginning? Brand hasn't said to much about the jews. He's ummed and ahhed about icke rather than actually endorsing antisemitism. I don't think brand has mentioned Jews at all really let alone making it a part of his repertoire the way dieudonne did, then again I don't care enough to sit through one of his shows.



caleb said:


> Farage and Brand are two sides of the same populist, right-wing coin.
> 
> Actually with his willingness to be an apologist for antisemite like David Icke, what's stopping Brand from becoming the British Dieudonne?


----------



## caleb (Dec 11, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Wasn't dieudonne an antisemite from the beginning? Brand hasn't said to much about the jews. He's ummed and ahhed about icke rather than actually endorsing antisemitism.



Nah, he was "on the left" (and still is, according to some idiots), campaigned on anti-racist platforms and so on. A lot more serious that Brand is, to be fair. Antisemitic turn started in the early 00s.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

If someone agrees with points made by racists as opposed to attacking them for their racism does that make them a racist? It certainly places racism lower down the pecking order as long as the person they're endorsing is anti establishment. My enemies' enemy is someone to share a bed with.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> How ironic. I'm offering up my tuppence worth on the popularity of Brand and why he might appeal to ordinary folks and yet you and your familiar persist in making it all about me. Brand speaks to a lot of people out there, including those who may not be as well versed in change as others  here are. Despite his celeb status (or maybe because of it) he's awakening a zeitgeist, a possible shift of consciousness and conscience that could lead to something good. But please, carry on the ad hominems and accusations, rather than attempt dialogue. It's what you do best.



Funny you should use the term zeitgeist, because my experience with people at work has been that there is a fair amount of crossover between people who like what Brand's been up to, and people that raved about those shit Zeitgeist films.

This is actually one reason I haven't written Brand off as totally useless. He has a number of important downsides with nobody should be afraid to dwell on, but that doesn't mean I think he has no potential use at all. I'll certainly be keeping an occasional eye on his progress, could go either way, he might evolve in a politically interesting way I suppose. In the meantime the best I can hope for is that those attracted to this 'exciting' yet superficial form of politics, may get less dangerous crap in their ears if they listen to Brand rather than Icke, Jones etc.

But I haven't got much time for those that insist that he or someone else like him might be the key to unlocking a better future. I think its far more likely that, should dramatic events eventually unfold, it will be as a result of some poor un-famous human being killed by the state in a manner that energises movements, than the likes of Brand writing books and mouthing off on the tellybox.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 11, 2014)

What has Brand done with Icke? (I don't mean has he hidden him somewhere)


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> What has Brand done with Icke? (I don't mean has he hidden him somewhere)


He murdered him with hologram Lizards (aw come on, you begged for it!)


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> If someone agrees with points made by racists as opposed to attacking them for their racism does that make them a racist? It certainly places racism lower down the pecking order as long as the person they're endorsing is anti establishment. My enemies' enemy is someone to share a bed with.



Doesn't make them racist, but what I said earlier about me and Blagsta disagreeing about conspiraloons during occupy, was that whilst they might not be racist (some definitely were, posting up the protocols and shit on the facebook group/pages.. others I really don't think were racist at all...) but, to be in that culture, you have to be able to tolerate racism and actually that lets it live and thrive and it'll start to get you at the edges so you'll actually believe that international bankers isn't code for jew, and how it's not jews it's zionists when actually the people they are listening to really aren't making that distinction. 
So no, not racism, but pretty much if not as bad as.



Coolfonz said:


> What has Brand done with Icke? (I don't mean has he hidden him somewhere)



I've posted up a few things earlier - he had him on his xfm radio show and US TV show in March 2013, he apparently gave some money to Icke's TV channel too (he's got an endorsement on the indiegogo page for it anyway), sure there's more but didn't bother digging further.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

What about now? Is he still palling around with icke today? I heard that icke criticised him over something a while back?


----------



## rekil (Dec 11, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> What about now? Is he still palling around with icke today? I heard that icke criticised him over something a while back?


He doesn't follow a lot of people on twitter, but the freak trinity of Keiser, Alex Jones and Icke is there.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

Ffs 

Fuck


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2014)

no idea - the bits I've listened to him he hasn't been anywhere near any of it so hopefully that's in the past, conspiraloonery offers a nice neat answer to someone asking why things are so fucked up, so he may have passed through that, got caught up a bit in Icke who I bet is really charismatic, snake oil salesman scummy type, and then one day realised what a load of utter fucking nonsense 90% of it is, how deep the racism runs and that Icke is a stopped clock, hence the 10% that turns out to be right (or rightish) and that there are other, more reasonable, explanations for those things.
Be good for him to actively disown it though, otherwise the doubt needs to be there imo.

edit: crossposted with copliker, that is bad


----------



## caleb (Dec 11, 2014)

Regardless of rather he's pally with Icke still, or whether Icke has criticised him, his politics and rhetoric are so clearly indebted to Icke's crap. It's really dire populism of the sort pushed by the right across Europe. I'm not going to going to go full antideutsche (lol) and say talking about finance in any context at all = structural antisemitism, and I don't think Brand is antisemtici or racist. I think Brand's "analysis" of what's wrong with things isn't too different from certain antisemites, though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

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.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 11, 2014)

Gary Wilmot


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Ffs
> 
> Fuck


more like this pls


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2014)

BigTom said:


> no idea - the bits I've listened to him he hasn't been anywhere near any of it so hopefully that's in the past, conspiraloonery offers a nice neat answer to someone asking why things are so fucked up, so he may have passed through that, got caught up a bit in Icke who I bet is really charismatic, snake oil salesman scummy type, and then one day realised what a load of utter fucking nonsense 90% of it is, how deep the racism runs and that Icke is a stopped clock, hence the 10% that turns out to be right (or rightish) and that there are other, more reasonable, explanations for those things.
> Be good for him to actively disown it though, otherwise the doubt needs to be there imo.
> 
> edit: crossposted with copliker, that is bad



Thats a possibility. Another is that a chunk of what they say still really appeals to him, but that he is now savvy enough to know from past experience that the mainstream media have a real easy narrative they can pull on you if you go into conspiracy territory. Or they don't get on personally anymore but still share some crossover of ideas, or don't have vehicles to cross-promote each other that they are simply desperate to make use of right now.

In any case if I judge Brand purely on his youtube channel, he's already got far more useful substance then any of them, and is mostly able to pursue the idea of how shit and biased the media are, without going completely loonspud about what secrets they are hiding and the motives for their distortions.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> 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.



I can come up with plenty if I reword the question. Celebrities can make considerable contributions to propaganda effort. Charlie Chaplin would be a good example. But certainly no matter how much some of his works made people think about a number of really important topics including the mechanised workplace and dangerous fascist dictators, his contribution would hardly be enough alone to prevent many people fighting and dying over these causes.


----------



## rekil (Dec 11, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Gary Wilmot


The British Paul Robeson.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

Anyway, I know a few folk on the left to have had excursions in Icke-ville, myself included, which can be a right of passage for many stabbing around in the dark for answers. His is just more public than most. It's forgivable but there has to be a denouncing of it to signify you're not still entertaining views shared with the NF, amongst others.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

elbows said:


> I can come up with plenty if I reword the question. Celebrities can make considerable contributions to propaganda effort. Charlie Chaplin would be a good example. But certainly no matter how much some of his works made people think about a number of really important topics including the mechanised workplace and dangerous fascist dictators, his contribution would hardly be enough alone to prevent many people fighting and dying over these causes.


Fair point. I guess Orwell too. But being a celeb and projecting your views through art isn't the same as being a celeb and jumping on actual living and breathing bottom up social campaigns thinking that your presence can only be a force for good. As others have repeatedly pointed out, it becomes about the celeb and he won't be the one made homeless if his overtures changes the dynamics in the action.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

The other thing to remember is that with the likes of heroes like Brand, if the establishment feel threatened enough they'll come to the table and deal. But the deal will be with Brand and his choice will be to accept or they'll ruin him. What would he choose? Will the women fighting for their homes be invited to the table? He needs to fuck off and get back to telling shit jokes and selling books about himself.


----------



## The Pale King (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The other thing to remember is that with the likes of heroes like Brand, if the establishment feel threatened enough they'll come to the table and deal. But the deal will be with Brand and his choice will be to accept or they'll ruin him. What would he choose? Will the women fighting for their homes be invited to the table? He needs to fuck off and get back to telling shit jokes and selling books about himself.



Unhappy is the land that needs a hero like Brand


----------



## kenny g (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The other thing to remember is that with the likes of heroes like Brand, if the establishment feel threatened enough they'll come to the table and deal. But the deal will be with Brand and his choice will be to accept or they'll ruin him. What would he choose? Will the women fighting for their homes be invited to the table? He needs to fuck off and get back to telling shit jokes and selling books about himself.



So the man is told he can't express himself based on a hypothetical. There are two rules with power - don't trust it and don't play with it. I have yet to see Brand becoming a UN ambassador or going for tea with the Queen (or Wilhelm for that matter) so at the moment I take him like any other person and he doesn't seem all bad. I worked with Brand  back in the early 2000's and he was a decent enough fellow then - I haven't got much reason to change my belief despite all the attempts to throw shit at him. He won't get my vote, but then again he isn't asking for it, and I'm not offering it.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyway, I know a few folk on the left to have had excursions in Icke-ville, myself included, which can be a right of passage for many stabbing around in the dark for answers. His is just more public than most. It's forgivable but there has to be a denouncing of it to signify you're not still entertaining views shared with the NF, amongst others.



Oops, this interesting post causes me to go off on a personal derail...

During the post 9/11 nightmare Bush years I was very far from being sure how far to go down the dark holes. I went quite far, though it was some years before I joined u75, and a combination of factors made me immune to Icke and Jones in particular. I had vivid memories of Icke being delusional on Wogan, and he came off very badly to me on that documentary where Jon Ronson followed him around. Jones was either not on the scene or his politics were so obviously right-wing isolationist wibble to me that there was no appeal there. Youtube didn't exist and most of the conspiracy sites came off as faceless, with exceptions such as Rense whose content was too blatantly anti-semitic to spend long with.

If I had a conspiracy theorist of choice at the time it was Michael Ruppert. Combined with a diet of Orwell, Chomsky, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Mark Steel, and then some Adam Curtis programs, I think I somehow managed to survive the period without breaking my politics and worldview. It probably helped that I'd read some of Robert Anton Wilsons non-fiction books (cosmic trigger stuff) some years before, so playing with somewhat iffy dot joining without becoming a deranged true believer was something I was at least vaguely familiar with.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 11, 2014)

so how many of you have watched a few editions of the trews? very often he says it's about getting involved in things local to you, in your community. he has said a few times that he doesn't want to be a leader, he isn't the messiah, that he doesn't have all the answers, or even any of the answers. there seems to be a lot of criticism about who he may or man not associate with, which i suppose is fair game in this thread as it is about rb. i'd rather we discussed what we can do to make things better than they are now, than to discuss rb and who his mates might be.

rb is making people think. he's made me think. he's made people i know think. he is interesting. his humour is a bit shite sometimes, but then i never particularly liked what little i had seen of his comedy. as i have said before, i really didn't want to like him, but i do. more so since the mini media storm with the sun.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

All the wormies coming out of the woodwork.  Fairly early on there was a frank discussion between establishment figures and Mick Jagger about his rebelious image coupled with mass popularity. Seems they were happy upon learning his only interest was to make money. He's been knighted, hasn't he?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2014)

Mungy said:


> so how many of you have watched a few editions of the trews? very often he says it's about getting involved in things local to you, in your community. he has said a few times that he doesn't want to be a leader, he isn't the messiah, that he doesn't have all the answers, or even any of the answers. there seems to be a lot of criticism about who he may or man not associate with, which i suppose is fair game in this thread as it is about rb. i'd rather we discussed what we can do to make things better than they are now, than to discuss rb and who his mates might be.
> 
> rb is making people think. he's made me think. he's made people i know think. he is interesting. his humour is a bit shite sometimes, but then i never particularly liked what little i had seen of his comedy. as i have said before, i really didn't want to like him, but i do. more so since the mini media storm with the sun.



There has also been discussion further back in the thread about this. My opinion is that it is in the nature of celebrity for brand to be presented as a leader, and that he must know this to be true, so simply saying he doesn't want it isn't enough. It's also in the nature of celebrity that the organising that comes about as a result of it will be top down, great individual type stuff, rather than bottom up community type stuff. Brand could do it if he did everything he could to remove his celebrity from the stuff he does, but he doesn't do that. Maybe he thinks he can balance the two, I think he's wrong.

On a broader tip, I want to move away from celebrity culture & individualism and I think this kind of thing helps to reproduce celebrity culture and individualism. It doesn't matter really whether I agree or disagree with it, it's about the role it plays in society.

I have watched maybe half a dozen episodes of the trews and a few other things with brand, I might even be tempted to watch question time with him and farage just for the show. Brand hasn't been mentioned at work, nor in my other non-political friendship groups, but he's definitely out there, no doubt about that. 

There's also no question that he has associated with icke, alex jones, max keiser and lawrence easeman, and these associations matter because who you associate with politically tells you something, sometimes a lot, about what a person's views are. Whether he still agrees with the views of icke is unknown, but easeman was very recent. It deserves, at the very least, comments and a raised eyebrow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Brand hasn't been mentioned at work, nor in my other non-political friendship groups, but he's definitely out there, no doubt about that.


there's only a few people denying he's out there, people like krtek a houby.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

elbows said:


> Oops, this interesting post causes me to go off on a personal derail...
> 
> During the post 9/11 nightmare Bush years I was very far from being sure how far to go down the dark holes. I went quite far, though it was some years before I joined u75, and a combination of factors made me immune to Icke and Jones in particular. I had vivid memories of Icke being delusional on Wogan, and he came off very badly to me on that documentary where Jon Ronson followed him around. Jones was either not on the scene or his politics were so obviously right-wing isolationist wibble to me that there was no appeal there. Youtube didn't exist and most of the conspiracy sites came off as faceless, with exceptions such as Rense whose content was too blatantly anti-semitic to spend long with.
> 
> If I had a conspiracy theorist of choice at the time it was Michael Ruppert. Combined with a diet of Orwell, Chomsky, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Mark Steel, and then some Adam Curtis programs, I think I somehow managed to survive the period without breaking my politics and worldview. It probably helped that I'd read some of Robert Anton Wilsons non-fiction books (cosmic trigger stuff) some years before, so playing with somewhat iffy dot joining without becoming a deranged true believer was something I was at least vaguely familiar with.


A lot of CTers are coming from the angle that international capital is bad, Newspapers lie to them, the CIA aren't to be trusted and will manufacture circumstances to suit their own ends. 

The more mature view can see the whole CT package and dig deep and discover the politics behind the veneer. The problem we find ourselves in is we then start to denounce everyone following this mode of thought which repels those going through the inquisitive period away from those of us who are apparently enlightened. Shouting racist at every CTist hasn't proved successful towards swelling our ranks.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 11, 2014)

It's not like Russel Brand is the _actual_ messiah. He isn't Jose. "The World Food Programme thinks that I am not ready to go immediately to a super-hard environment. I must grow up, step-by-step. I am the naive manager who is getting the job for the first time. I am eager to learn. I am full of desire. I am also naive."
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/may/19/jose-mourinho-un-ambassador-against-hunger

See. Jose gets that whole hollow-out-the-whatsit thing. *touches nose and points at everyone*


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> A lot of CTers are coming from the angle that international capital is bad, Newspapers lie to them, the CIA aren't to be trusted and will manufacture circumstances to suit their own ends.
> 
> The more mature view can see the whole CT package and dig deep and discover the politics behind the veneer. The problem we find ourselves in is we then start to denounce everyone following this mode of thought which repels those going through the inquisitive period away from those of us who are apparently enlightened. Shouting racist at every CTist hasn't proved successful towards swelling our ranks.



Same with shouting racist at ukippers but many brand fans happy to do just that. Agree with you though (and I'm think it's really important to expose the racism behind icke etc)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Shouting racist at every CTist hasn't proved successful towards swelling our ranks.



I sometimes wonder what Jazzz is up to these days? Hope the lizards didn't get him.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I sometimes wonder what Jazzz is up to these days? Hope the lizards didn't get him.



Or the Jews Zionists.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 11, 2014)

i miss jazzz. and that other chap, forgotten his name which is quite sad, really.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2014)

Fela fan or whatever his name was? Or Fanta?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

I don't frankly.


----------



## keybored (Dec 11, 2014)

52 pages on Russell look-at-me Bland? Shame on you all. Urban is meant to be my escape from this shit.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The other thing to remember is that with the likes of heroes like Brand, if the establishment feel threatened enough they'll come to the table and deal. But the deal will be with Brand and his choice will be to accept or they'll ruin him. What would he choose? Will the women fighting for their homes be invited to the table? He needs to fuck off and get back to telling shit jokes and selling books about himself.



am confused, what precedents are you looking back at that tell you that : 

 "The other thing to remember is that with the likes of heroes like Brand, if the establishment feel threatened enough they'll come to the table and deal. But the deal will be with Brand and his choice will be to accept or they'll ruin him." ??

Why would Brand start 'dealing' at any table ? He's already shown re : New Era, that he's aware of the think line between visible supporter /and distraction ( eg : not appearing on One Show last night ) , am sure he's not deluded enough to start thinking he' should be 'dealing' with 'the establishment' in place of the movements and forces he's trying ( rightly or wrongly) to assist ?


----------



## Humberto (Dec 11, 2014)

Maybe he will answer the Icke stuff on QT. On in 15 minutes. Can't imagine he will get an easy ride there. If he chins Farage I'm becoming a Brandite.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 11, 2014)

Farage will 'win', that's how it works. Brand will just tie himself up in impenetrable language.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Farage will 'win', that's how it works. Brand will just tie himself up in impenetrable language.


farage will 'whine', that's what he does.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2014)

see? farage has started already, denying he's a career politician.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 11, 2014)

'sorry for the sexist language - i'm working on that' 
Still?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2014)

Seen on twitter today: 'as Russell Brand prepares to take on farage, build the socialist revolution' 

Meanwhile at the food bank...


----------



## coley (Dec 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyway, I know a few folk on the left to have had excursions in Icke-ville, myself included, which can be a right of passage for many stabbing around in the dark for answers. His is just more public than most. It's forgivable but there has to be a denouncing of it to signify you're not still entertaining views shared with the NF, amongst others.



Is denouncing it enough though? The casual racism, sexism and not so casual homophobia that I experienced 'doon thi pit' was considered perfectly normal back then and there are a few today,in fairly public positions, who wouldn't want their 'bait time crack'  of 20 years ago, aired in public.
Now it's perfectly possible and hopefully the case,that they have matured and regret the positions and opinions they held then, we are talking of a generation that grew up in the 60s and 70s.
But the likes of Brand and Ross? Any renunciation on their part is, IMO, PR damage limitation.
Arseholes the pair of em.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 12, 2014)

Didn't he call one of the panelists 'love'?  Bit backward. I use the term lazily on occasion but not if I'm on the telly doing QT with a majority female panel. 

Didn't make a dick of himself overall.

Thought he was outclassed by the two women MPs. (don't know their names and don't particularly care).

Dissapointing.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 12, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Didn't he call one of the panelists 'love'?


Yup. Followed immediately by


tufty79 said:


> 'sorry for the sexist language - i'm working on that'


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Seen on twitter today: 'as Russell Brand prepares to take on farage, build the socialist revolution'
> 
> Meanwhile at the food bank...


You forgot the link!

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/19834


----------



## coley (Dec 12, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> Yup. Followed immediately by



Twats working on re inventing himself, nowt wrong with love, or me love or similar, all depends on the context,


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Twats working on re inventing himself, nowt wrong with love, or me love or similar, all depends on the context,


It tends to get said to either gender up north  
Thing is with using it on QT, i have a sneaking suspicion he wouldn't have said it to a bloke (which i guess is backed up by brand picking himself up on it)


----------



## coley (Dec 12, 2014)

copliker said:


> You forgot the link!
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/19834


Christ on a crutch, when socialism can regard the likes of Brand as a leading light, then we are all screwed.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Christ on a crutch, when socialism can regard the likes of Brand as a leading light, then we are all screwed.


The only people on my fb feed who've been celebrating him are a swp member, and someone i used to know who's all 'stay open minded about chemtrails' and sharing david icke stuff 
(this may be more suited to the fb annoyances thread tbf)


----------



## coley (Dec 12, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> It tends to get said to either gender up north
> Thing is with using it on QT, i have a sneaking suspicion he wouldn't have said it to a bloke (which i guess is backed up by brand picking himself up on it)


Naw, doon sooth, Cornwall or theraboots, IIRC, up here its "pet, or bonnie lass" though on a national televised debate? Bugger it, I would love to tell Theresa May, whey haddaway ti Shyte bonnie lass.
But shamefully  I must admit, I would like the opportunity to continue the discussion with her, on dialect over a few bottles in a hotel bedroom.
Forgive me Urbs, I am weak in matters of the flesh


----------



## Greebo (Dec 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Naw, doon sooth, Cornwall or theraboots, IIRC, up here its "pet, or bonnie lass" though on a national televised debate? Bugger it, I would love to tell Theresa May, whey haddaway ti Shyte bonnie lass. <snip>


The other side of the Pennines, luv and mate are generally used for either sex.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2014)

I watched bits of it, QT. Rotating band of arseholes.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

Many people across the UK are waiting in eager anticipation for the battle between Russell Brandand Nigel Farage on Thursday night's BBC Question Time programme (11 December).


Eager anticipation? Really?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2014)

Dunno why they call it question time, questions imply that you'll get answers. Everyone on that prog uses a question as 'my turn to speak time' rather than 'cogent, insightful answer' time


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

Question time is a  bit snapper than Droning platitudes time


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

This is embarrassing. 


http://m.socialistparty.org.uk/keyw...-call-for-revolution-join-the-socialist-party


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

To beat the Tories, first smash the lizards!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2014)

any excuse for a recruitment drive


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

So don't just get angry at the news or throw your hands in the air, wishing things would change, get out there and make a difference

Good grief


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

This is just anecdotal obv but amount of times Brand has been mentioned positively at my work ever: 0 the amount of times Farage has been mentioned positively this week: about 8 or so


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

This thread has gone to the dogs...a load of Internet grumps who havent even read his book, doing nothing and talking bollocks.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> This thread has gone to the dogs...a load of Internet grumps who havent even read his book, doing nothing and talking bollocks.



What's worth reading in his book?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> To beat the Tories, first smash the lizards!


I'm wondering what the PD CC would make of Brand now


----------



## BigTom (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> This thread has gone to the dogs...a load of Internet grumps who havent even read his book, doing nothing and talking bollocks.


Whose doing nothing? Lazy cliche, you should know better. 

So far, because I'm critical & skeptical of brand & celeb activism I've been told I don't care, that I've nothing to say and should be quiet and now that I do nothing. This is not healthy for left politics, engage with the reasons why people are skeptical, don't throw out lazy stupid accusations, it's fucking shit


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What's worth reading in his book?



His vision for a changed Britain. Sure, there is some analysis and referencing but he does his homework. He is an extremely well read and intelligent man with a sincere desire for change and attempts to encourage people to do this (instead of, for example, sitting there talking bollocks on the Internet, which i am aware i am currently doing). There is some interesting analysis in there of how society can incorporate spiritual values too and aspire to that, rather than attempts at achieving change through violent means. That is not the book in a nutshell by the way, read it for yourself. It doesnt exactly take long!

If you read his words you will understand him more - its easy to spot people who have clearly NOT read anything about Brand's efforts to get clean, and its laughable those who think he is out for self promotion. There is some real ignorance on here, from people who just look at him and his foppish demeanour and make a judgment, without actually listening to him or reading his words. And who offer no alternatives either. I'll let this thread get on with it. As you were.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm wondering what the PD CC would make of Brand now



Posadist Aliens vs the Coalition of Rothschilds and Royalist Lizards for control of the post-apocalyptic earth


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Whose doing nothing? Lazy cliche, you should know better.
> 
> So far, because I'm critical & skeptical of brand & celeb activism I've been told I don't care, that I've nothing to say and should be quiet and now that I do nothing. This is not healthy for left politics, engage with the reasons why people are skeptical, don't throw out lazy stupid accusations, it's fucking shit



maybe you care. Those who make blanket statements about Russell Brands politics and motives without reading his words or listening to his DAILY news analysis (which is a pretty prolific and dedicated output), sound sour and bitter. I wonder whether they focus on his demeanour or his words. What he is saying exposing Walmart's treatment of its employees, Irish water charges and how shit Ed Miliband is as a politician has to be said! I dont agree with absolutely everything he says but feel very GLAD someone is saying it. In fact im chuffed. And learning some stuff too (such as the transparent Fox News agenda). why the fuck should someone with balls not expose these cunts? There are others who have done such as George Monbiot, but why not go further?

It really baffles me that there are some of you who might prefer him to stop, cos he  gets on your nerves and stuff with his foppish air and hyperactive demeanour. Have a think about what he is saying instead. He has zero interest in self promotion anymore, and is sincere in his politics. What is it about comprehending this that some people find so strange? If you find it suspect, and think he has a self-aggrandizing agenda, you're off the mark.

I have a question for those who dont like Russell Brand. Can they suggest anyone else today who is very credible, and calling for revolution in a very dedicated way? serious question.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> There is some interesting analysis in there of how society can incorporate spiritual values too and aspire to that, rather than attempts at achieving change through violent means.





Lost me there. A couple hundred kids can't sit about in a shopping centre without getting attacked and arrested by the police and Brand thinks that neoliberalism is going to be overthrown by being a little bit Eastern religious dogma


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Lost me there. A couple hundred kids can't sit about in a shopping centre without getting attacked and arrested by the police and Brand thinks that neoliberalism is going to be overthrown by being a little bit Eastern religious dogma



thats bloody ignorant, and you know it. Go and educate yourself about what he is saying instead of making blanket sneery statements like that.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Lost me there. A couple hundred kids can't sit about in a shopping centre without getting attacked and arrested by the police and Brand thinks that neoliberalism is going to be overthrown by being a little bit Eastern religious dogma


in watching quite a few editions of the trews and reading his book, i don't think i have heard brand say that, or anything that could be construed as that.

spirituality is a part of what he talks about. i'm a recovering addict, and spirituality is cornerstone of my own recovery, and is important to me. i can understand why anyone experiencing life in this way would want others to see it this way. whilst i think, as a generalisation, we could all benefit from attending to the spiritual aspect of life, my understanding is there are people who don't need to go there, who are doing just fine and don't need to check their moral compass in that way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2014)

I bet if he was talking christian socialism his supporters would shit a brick


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:
			
		

> I have a question for those who dont like Russell Brand. Can they suggest anyone else today who is very credible, and calling for revolution in a very dedicated way? serious question.



He can call for a revolution all he likes. Won't happen without a social base.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> This is just anecdotal obv but amount of times Brand has been mentioned positively at my work ever: 0 the amount of times Farage has been mentioned positively this week: about 8 or so



Quite.

Farage comes up in conversation regularly. Universally negatively. 

Brand hasn't come up at all.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> thats bloody ignorant, and you know it. Go and educate yourself about what he is saying instead of making blanket sneery statements like that.



How do you propose to overthrow capital and the state without violence?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

chilango said:


> Quite.
> 
> Farage comes up in conversation regularly. Universally negatively.
> 
> Brand hasn't come up at all.



Yep.


----------



## maomao (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> This is just anecdotal obv but amount of times Brand has been mentioned positively at my work ever: 0 the amount of times Farage has been mentioned positively this week: about 8 or so


Well the member of night staff who has been calling me Arthur Scargill for the last 8 years has now started calling me Russell Brand so he's obviously had some impact.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well the member of night staff who has been calling me Arthur Scargill for the last 8 years has now started calling me Russell Brand so he's obviously had some impact.


what a demotion you have had


----------



## Mungy (Dec 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet if he was talking christian socialism his supporters would shit a brick


i had to look that one up


----------



## FNG (Dec 12, 2014)

> Amazing as it is that the brain can conjure up these neurological illusions, which on some subtle level are a physical reality, like they must be made of an electrical impulse which has a charge or a weight, it’s a fucking drag when I can’t voluntarily stop it. There is no limit to what can be imagined either; we can now in this moment command the mind to play the Kylie [Minogue] track, then instead of her singing it, have the words emerge from the mouth of an elephant in dark glasses. Your mind is doing it now. It exists. Then you can put your school’s hardest kid in there, mine was Jamie Dawkins (no relation), put him on the elephant’s back dressed as bin Laden, singing the harmonies



 Sounds like NLP, which is a useful tool for overcoming adictions and trauma but its purely subjective.
Sounds like all we need is the will,A triumph of the Will if you like.


----------



## FNG (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Lost me there. A couple hundred kids can't sit about in a shopping centre without getting attacked and arrested by the police and Brand thinks that neoliberalism is going to be overthrown by being a little bit Eastern religious dogma



 Just bear in mind that behind every smiling native seemingly happy with his lot all benign and smiling and that is a grim faced policeman tightly gripping a lathi


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> thats bloody ignorant, and you know it. Go and educate yourself about what he is saying instead of making blanket sneery statements like that.


Smash Capital by buying his product.

Just lol really.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 12, 2014)

Is Russell being lined up to front TUSC and the new mass workers party?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> This thread has gone to the dogs...a load of Internet grumps who havent even read his book, doing nothing and talking bollocks.


Your hilarious yet tragic posts here last night demonstrate something that's becoming clearer by the day. The only effect Brand has had on a number of confused guilty right-on types who are very aware that they themselves never do a damn thing is to turn him into a weapon to attack the people who do actually do things - and to do this because you don't like those people, nothing to do with actual politics. Transparent. 

And it's celebrity that allows you to do this - it allows you to rally behind him and point to his fame as a measure of your own popularity and correctness by hiding behind his fame - whilst pointing to people making serious experience based criticisms of the way that celebrity has been used and is now being used (and most of you are the same people who moan about x-factor and 'manufactured shit' btw) lack of fame as a way to dismiss or evade those criticisms. Exactly that celebrity poison being injected a talked about the other week. 

And look at the dynamic they're driving - they're forcing people who were formerly sympathetic to Brand and willing to give him a chance, letting him learn from mistakes based on sincerity and enthusiasm, willing to give him space and time to a position (read back the posts from earlier on here for example) where they no longer feel they can or should - precisely because of the way people like you are acting and the fear of what consequences that continuing may bring. Brand has become a tool (or more accurately, you and have have turned him into that weapon) that the people you say he exposes has put in your hands and you're using it just as they would want.

I asked these people a few weeks ago exactly what Brand has got them to do - not  a single one could list a single thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Is Russell being lined up to front TUSC and the new mass workers party?


It's people like you that helped produce him and the conditions that produced him. On one hand giving it rhetoric about encouraging ground up organisation and participation, extra-parliamentary activity and so on, whilst demanding it's directed into the labour party and the proper processes  - the ones that people can see are rotten and offer nothing.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's people like you that helped produce him and the conditions that produced him. On one hand giving it rhetoric about encouraging ground up organisation and participation, extra-parliamentary activity and so on, whilst demanding it's directed into the labour party and the proper processes  - the ones that people can see are rotten and offer nothing.


I have never argued everything has to go through Labour - I don't think that.  But building pressure inside and outside Labour and the unions is necessary.  How does that make Brand my fault?!


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Your hilarious yet tragic posts here last night demonstrate something that's becoming clearer by the day. The only effect Brand has had on a number of confused guilty right-on types who are very aware that they themselves never do a damn thing is to turn him into a weapon to attack the people who do actually do things - and to do this because you don't like those people, nothing to do with actual politics. Transparent.
> 
> And it's celebrity that allows you to do this - it allows you to rally behind him and point to his fame as a measure of your own popularity and correctness by hiding behind his fame - whilst pointing to people making serious experience based criticisms of the way that celebrity has been used and is now being used (and most of you are the same people who moan about x-factor and 'manufactured shit' btw) lack of fame as a way to dismiss or evade those criticisms. Exactly that celebrity poison being injected a talked about the other week.
> 
> ...



Ask not what your celebrity can do for you, ask what you can do for your celebrity.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I have never argued everything has to go through Labour - I don't think that.  But building pressure inside and outside Labour and the unions is necessary.  How does that make Brand my fault?!


And here, politician, you again do what i said you do.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And here, politician, you again do what i said you do.


No I don't - extra parliamentary campaigns can be valuable in themselves


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I don't - extra parliamentary campaigns can be valuable in themselves


You have consistently argeud for years on here that any real change can and must come through labour - the only way you're interested in anything else is in how it impacts labour internally. You say one thing and pretend you mean another. You always mean the latter above but say the former. Politician. Why are you so untrusted and with such a bad reputation for spinning waffling deviousness on here? It's because you are the people that are hated by Brand's types (and many many others) for your politicianicity writ small.


----------



## andysays (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> This thread has gone to the dogs...a load of Internet grumps who havent even read his book, doing nothing and talking bollocks.



Could be worse though - it could have gone to the wolves 

And OMG, we haven't even read his book


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I have a question for those who dont like Russell Brand. Can they suggest anyone else today who is very credible, and calling for revolution in a very dedicated way? serious question.


Nickelback.



Spoiler


----------



## articul8 (Dec 12, 2014)

Untrusted by the small army of permanent interweb warriors of the ideological ultra-left in their groupthink hate sessions.  Ah well we all have our crosses to bear


----------



## BigTom (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Untrusted by the small army of permanent interweb warriors of the ideological ultra-left in their groupthink hate sessions.  Ah well we all have our crosses to bear


Fuck off with this sectarian nonsense and address the points and criticisms that have been made, or put butchers on ignore and leave it at that.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> maybe you care. Those who make blanket statements about Russell Brands politics and motives without reading his words or listening to his DAILY news analysis (which is a pretty prolific and dedicated output), sound sour and bitter. I wonder whether they focus on his demeanour or his words.



If you don't like blanket statements don't make them about people on this thread.
You've no need to wonder if people focus on his demeanour or his words, because it's quite clear what people are criticising him about on the basis of what they've said in their posts. 
Either specifically pick out people who you think are just sniping, or respond to the arguments that people are making. 



> What he is saying exposing Walmart's treatment of its employees, Irish water charges and how shit Ed Miliband is as a politician has to be said! I dont agree with absolutely everything he says but feel very GLAD someone is saying it. In fact im chuffed. And learning some stuff too (such as the transparent Fox News agenda). why the fuck should someone with balls not expose these cunts? There are others who have done such as George Monbiot, but why not go further?



His involvement reproduces the celebrity culture that means that you feel like someone famous must be saying this and that it's an issue if not. I've had plenty of conversations with people about how shit miliband is, how bad ASDA/Walmart (and other companies) are, and plenty of other things that Brand has talked about. We don't actually need him to discuss these things, but because he exists and takes up that space, then people don't talk as much about is as they would if celebs weren't there to do it instead.



> It really baffles me that there are some of you who might prefer him to stop, cos he  gets on your nerves and stuff with his foppish air and hyperactive demeanour.



either find something from me - or anyone else - who says he should stop because of his hair style or fuck off with this bullshit nonsense.



> Have a think about what he is saying instead. He has zero interest in self promotion anymore, and is sincere in his politics. What is it about comprehending this that some people find so strange? If you find it suspect, and think he has a self-aggrandizing agenda, you're off the mark.
> 
> I have a question for those who dont like Russell Brand. Can they suggest anyone else today who is very credible, and calling for revolution in a very dedicated way? serious question.



If he had zero interest in self-promotion, he wouldn't be recording trews, releasing a book or anything else. He'd be working as anonymously as possible with the groups he wants to support. That doesn't mean he isn't genuine in his support for those groups, or that his primary aim is self-promotion, it likely means that he thinks that he has a platform to promote the groups and wants to use it because he thinks that'll be good, but it necessarily promotes himself at the same time, and he must know this to be true.

I know quite a few credible people who are working for and calling for revolution in a very dedicated way. none of them are celebs. We don't need celebs, I hate celeb culture, I won't support something that is produced from, feeds into and recreates celeb culture. I don't want him involved with the projects I'm involved in because his celebrity would be actively damaging to them.
Now respond to those points please, instead of nonsense about his fucking hair style.

Also, why is it not talking bollocks when it's in printed, written form, mediated through publishing houses, but it's bollocks when it's on the internet, expressed without mediation by ordinary people?
Is it cos it's brand and he's a celeb, but we're not celebs? Cos it really feels that way.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Could be worse though - it could have gone to the wolves
> 
> And OMG, we haven't even read his book


I've read his book - in it he claims that Dom Joly is the modern day equivalent of Guy Debord.  He also seems to think that ISIS took Damascus and that they travel solely on horseback rather than US built High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. That Assange was set up on rape charges and that classic 'global conspiracy' (you know, all the old tropes) is real. That politics can't bring about his revolution - only religion can. 

I no longer think Hari had much of hand in it - but there are many pennyesque handy types popping up to conveniently illustrate (the judge shooting smack whilst sentencing people for possession, the private schoolboy who tells him to read orwell). But there is no doubting he is genuine. Now he can get on with the things i mentioned he should do with his money and that he also says he intends to do in the book as regards 'money-sharing'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> This thread has gone to the dogs...a load of Internet grumps who havent even read his book, doing nothing and talking bollocks.



Plus a couple of Brand fans who ignore the fact that some of us *have* read his book, who *are* politically active, and aren't talking bollocks, they're saying things that *you* don't like.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What's worth reading in his book?



I read it to find out where his head is at. The book does a good job of that - better than his piece in the NS issue he edited.


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

Maybe Debord shot himself because he didn't get that phone call about the ferry ad.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> maybe you care. Those who make blanket statements about Russell Brands politics and motives without reading his words or listening to his DAILY news analysis (which is a pretty prolific and dedicated output), sound sour and bitter. I wonder whether they focus on his demeanour or his words. What he is saying exposing Walmart's treatment of its employees, Irish water charges and how shit Ed Miliband is as a politician has to be said! I dont agree with absolutely everything he says but feel very GLAD someone is saying it. In fact im chuffed. And learning some stuff too (such as the transparent Fox News agenda). why the fuck should someone with balls not expose these cunts? There are others who have done such as George Monbiot, but why not go further?



Russell Brand hasn't "exposed" either of the things that you claim he has. They were *both* existing issues with protests constructed around them before he publicised them.



> It really baffles me that there are some of you who might prefer him to stop, cos he  gets on your nerves and stuff with his foppish air and hyperactive demeanour. Have a think about what he is saying instead. He has zero interest in self promotion anymore, and is sincere in his politics. What is it about comprehending this that some people find so strange? If you find it suspect, and think he has a self-aggrandizing agenda, you're off the mark.



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_.



> I have a question for those who dont like Russell Brand. Can they suggest anyone else today who is very credible, and calling for revolution in a very dedicated way? serious question.



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.


----------



## The Pale King (Dec 12, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well the member of night staff who has been calling me Arthur Scargill for the last 8 years has now started calling me Russell Brand so he's obviously had some impact.



Have you recently started wearing tighter trousers?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet if he was talking christian socialism his supporters would shit a brick



From what I recall from his piece in the _New Statesman_ edition he edited, his "spiritual values" aren't really spiritual, they're fairly socially-pragmatic stuff like "think of others", and "altruism is a good thing". All stuff communists, anarchists, Christians and a shedload of others have been saying for centuries, but it gets seen as "spiritual", because it's so outside the ambit of many people reared under neoliberalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

The Pale King said:


> Have you recently started wearing tighter trousers?



Skinny jeans, even?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> How do you propose to overthrow capital and the state without violence?



Maybe if Cheesy-weezy and Russy-Wussy ask them nicely...?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well the member of night staff who has been calling me Arthur Scargill for the last 8 years has now started calling me Russell Brand so he's obviously had some impact.



You should just ask him "do I look like I'm 5ft 7 inches tall, and have hair made of shredded wheat?", then nut him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

The Pale King said:


> Have you recently started wearing tighter trousers?


i've heard he's started wearing a chest wig.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No I don't - extra parliamentary campaigns can be valuable in themselves



What happens with extra-parliamentary campaigns that gain traction?

Let's face it, we all know that if the above happens, then Labour, the Tories or the Living-Deads will appropriate the cause (suitably strip-mined of any meaningful content) in order to "capture" the cause's support.
*THAT *is most often the value your ilk see in extra-parliamentary causes and campaigns - as a feedstock for votes for your party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Untrusted by the small army of permanent interweb warriors of the ideological ultra-left in their groupthink hate sessions.  Ah well we all have our crosses to bear



You can take the boy out of the Trots, but you can't take the Trot out of the boy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You can take the boy out of the Trots, but you can't take the Trot out of the boy.


he always posts like he's got the trots of the verbal sort


----------



## articul8 (Dec 12, 2014)

How is it that I get called a "politician" then I get called out for sectarian abuse!?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Untrusted by the small army of permanent interweb warriors of the ideological ultra-left in their groupthink hate sessions.  Ah well we all have our crosses to bear


when do you think you'll be nailed to yours?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How is it that I get called a "politician" then I get called out for sectarian abuse!?


aren't politicians by necessity sectarian?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've read his book - in it he claims that Dom Joly is the modern day equivalent of Guy Debord.  He also seems to think that ISIS took Damascus and that they travel solely on horseback rather than US built High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. That Assange was set up on rape charges and that classic 'global conspiracy' (you know, all the old tropes) is real. That politics can't bring about his revolution - only religion can.
> 
> I no longer think Hari had much of hand in it - but there are many pennyesque handy types popping up to conveniently illustrate (the judge shooting smack whilst sentencing people for possession, the private schoolboy who tells him to read orwell). But there is no doubting he is genuine. Now he can get on with the things i mentioned he should do with his money and that he also says he intends to do in the book as regards 'money-sharing'.



Seriously?  I didn't think it would be that bad.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> aren't politicians by necessity sectarian?


I've never been a politician so wouldn't know


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I've never been a politician so wouldn't know


you've an absence of coherent politics so you've every qualification to be a labour politician.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Seriously?  I didn't think it would be that bad.


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,


----------



## articul8 (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you've an absence of coherent politics so you've every qualification to be a labour politician.


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


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 t_hey saying??


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2014)

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


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 t_hey 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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 (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 t_hey 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

killer b said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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 (Dec 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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 (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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.



ViolentPanda said:


> 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.




ViolentPanda said:


> 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



ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

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


ViolentPanda said:


> 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.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How is it that I get called a "politician" then I get called out for sectarian abuse!?




yeah, sort of owe you a semi-apology for that, butcher's been just as sectarian, just I agree with him, and I was fucked off with this thread and how those who say they support brand seem to do so completely uncritically and respond to any criticism with nonsense about keyboard warriors and brands hair and personal jibes rather than engaging with the points made so you took my annoyance cos you'd posted last, sorry.
I should probably just leave this thread really.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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?



There certainly appear to be quite a lot of people who would slag him off a great deal less if he was just a normal bland celeb...silly panel shows, maybe the odd ad, aftershave range...OK Mag etc.

You don't have to be an RB sycophant to find that a really confounding attitude.

The thing about private work (be it community stuff or charity donations) is that, by definition, we don't hear about it. This one is as old as the hills for the nit-pickers : If we don't hear about it - assume it isn't happening. If we do hear about it, well it's just ego fuelled grandstanding innit. Fucked either way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


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


a regular bloke perhaps most famous for phoning up an old man to tell him rb had shagged his grand-daughter. a regular bloke who has made prank calls to a rape line. for a journo, tho, your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired: i didn't compare brand to anyone else.


----------



## andysays (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've read his book...


Not sure if we should thank you or express sympathy for subjecting yourself to it.


> ...in it he claims that Dom Joly is the modern day equivalent of Guy Debord.  He also seems to think that ISIS took Damascus and that they travel solely on horseback rather than US built High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. That Assange was set up on rape charges and that classic 'global conspiracy' (you know, all the old tropes) is real. That politics can't bring about his revolution - only religion can...


That strikes me as even worse than I was imagining, but maybe Cheesypoof (who as we know has also read it) can explain why that's all good stuff and worthy of our agreement, not to say celebrating.


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I should probably just leave this thread really.


Don't forget your cardigan.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> 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.



The film certainly wound me up by relying on some lazy cliches about the Saudis while ignoring Pakistan.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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.



I stepped off Moore into Al Franken.  Christ it was bad.  Partisanship rather than ideology.  I think it made me look less favourably on Moore as there were similarities in what they were talking about.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

To


elbows said:


> The film certainly wound me up by relying on some lazy cliches about the Saudis while ignoring Pakistan.



That's what I would probably find shit today tbh  I do remember at the time the book entered ct territory about Saudi Arabia.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

If Brands profile is going to remain high for some time to come, I just hope he manages to learn from the likes of Mark Thomas, Jeremy Hardy, Robert Newman, Mark Steel, Charlie Brooker, and some others. Its not like politics/activism and comedy are strange bedfellows in this country. All of those I mentioned have their faults too, but they do/did seem to be able to get deeper into the subjects at hand - Brands hyperactive persona doesn't really help him in this regard.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> That's what I would probably find shit today tbh  I do remember at the time the book entered ct territory about Saudi Arabia.



Probably because his main angle was the Bush family ties to the House of Saud. Ah well, I quite liked some of his TV programs, at least compared to that film. And his excesses caught up with him in the end anyway, they did a number on him in Team America and Brand would be easy to portray with similar levels of absurdity.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2014)

Plenty of celebrities have been "political activists" over the years. Whether they've done more harm than good is a matter for debate.

What is different here though from many previous examples is that instead of becoming a supporter of a movement with a clear identity, Brand is being set up as a figurehead (willing or not) for a far more amorphous and malleable movement, one that is yet to be shaped and develop direction. The role he may play is thus of greater significance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

he's jumped the fucking shark


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2014)

chilango said:


> Plenty of celebrities have been "political activists" over the years. Whether they've done more harm than good is a matter for debate.
> 
> What is different here though from many previous examples is that instead of becoming a supporter of a movement with a clear identity, Brand is being set up as a figurehead (willing or not) for a far more amorphous and malleable movement, one that is yet to be shaped and develop direction. The role he may play is thus of greater significance.



...as I've already said at the top of the thread.



chilango said:


> A bigger/stronger/more rooted Left or opposition could easily absorb/accommodate Brand (as it did with all kinds in the 70s I assume.
> 
> But the opposition now is so small, unsteady, weak and lacking in identity that it can easily be (further) broken by the impact of individuals (even non-celebrities).


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> a regular bloke perhaps most famous for phoning up an old man to tell him rb had shagged his grand-daughter. a regular bloke who has made prank calls to a rape line.



He apologised for the Sachs call. You need to move on.

As for prank calls to a rape line? I'd bet you have either grossly misinterpreted the apparent misdemeanour, or its a load of rubbish. And i'll leave the other dig thanks


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> He apologised for the Sachs call. You need to move on.
> 
> As for prank calls to a rape line? I'd bet you have either grossly misinterpreted the apparent misdemeanour, or its a load of rubbish. And i'll leave the other dig thanks


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...cry-Brands-joke-police-hunting-sex-fiend.html

which is it, cheesy? misinterpreted or a load of rubbish?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Not sure if we should thank you or express sympathy for subjecting yourself to it.
> 
> That strikes me as even worse than I was imagining, but maybe Cheesypoof (who as we know has also read it) can explain why that's all good stuff and worthy of our agreement, not to say celebrating.



I dont agree with everything he says. I think he can be a conspiraloon but i agree with his call for a need for revolution through non-violent means and much of his Trews bulletins.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...cry-Brands-joke-police-hunting-sex-fiend.html
> 
> which is it, cheesy? misinterpreted or a load of rubbish?



Just read it. Sounds like an extremely stupid juvenile prank gone wrong, from 2008. I am with you on this one. But i dont think there was any sinister intent. He has changed his ways since then and i think has learned from it. And we should let it go and focus on what he is saying today.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

chilango said:


> Plenty of celebrities have been "political activists" over the years. Whether they've done more harm than good is a matter for debate.



Madonnas attempts gave me the most chuckles. A music video featuring a grenade being thrown at a pseudo-dubya that got pulled after release, and a later quote from her about wanting to be like Gandhi or Lennon but she doesn't want to die.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

,


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> It was an extremely stupid juvenile prank gone wrong, from 2008. I am with you on this one. But i dont think there was any sinister intent. He has changed his ways since then and i think has learned from it.


and what lessons do you think he's taken from the experience?

and for fuck's sake the man was 33 at the time. how's that a fucking juvenile prank?


----------



## FNG (Dec 12, 2014)

moores Awful truth on Wallet amnesty holds up


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and what lessons do you think he's taken from the experience?



well if you read his book, you'll see. When you havent, you wouldnt know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> well if you read his book, you'll see. When you havent, you wouldnt know.


you say it was a juvenile prank. for fuck's sake, the man was THIRTY-THREE at the time. by that time you're not making schoolboy errors, you know what the fuck you're doing.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> well if you read his book, you'll see. When you havent, you wouldnt know.



Since you've read it, how about you tell us?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you say it was a juvenile prank. for fuck's sake, the man was THIRTY-THREE at the time. by that time you're not making schoolboy errors, you know what the fuck you're doing.



yep, youre right about that! i think he has made up for it now though, he is trying hard to be a good man. He has changed. That's what is exciting about the whole Russell Brand 'story' - he was lost and now is found - the greatest cliche of words, imaginable, has happened to a once egotistical, hopeless and hapless addict. I find that refreshing. And he is a force for good. Another thing, you think the Rubberbandits would get mixed up with someone transparent? get to fuck!


----------



## andysays (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I dont agree with everything he says. I think he can be a conspiraloon but i agree with his call for a need for revolution through non-violent means and much of his Trews bulletins.



But what do you think about the specific things butchersapron has mentioned about his book and/or many of the other specific criticisms of his actions etc which people have pointed out?

Do you think someone who comes out with these various things mentioned and who you concede can be a conspiraloon should be treated with reverence (your word, post 1648), or do you think that he is a valid target for criticism?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

elbows said:


> Since you've read it, how about you tell us?



you joking? no way am i gonna summarise it for you, so you and others can sit there with your armchair analysis and sneery comments. Thats what you want to do, enit?


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

Who gives a shit who the rubberbandits get mixed up with.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

He lived for 33 years not knowing that rape is not funny and that waste police time is a criminal offence


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> well if you read his book, you'll see. When you havent, you wouldnt know.


Are you _quite sure_ that you've read Revolution?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you _quite sure_ that you've read Revolution?


remember the manifesto only gets going two thirds of the way through.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> yep, youre right about that! i think he has made up for it now though, he is trying hard to be a good man. He has changed. That's what is exciting about the whole Russell Brand 'story' - he was lost and now is found - the greatest cliche of words, imaginable, has happened to a once egotistical, hopeless and hapless addict. I find that refreshing. And he is a force for good. Another thing, you think the Rubberbandits would get mixed up with someone transparent? get to fuck!


i wonder when you're going to be found and if you'll no longer be an addict, egotistical, hopeless, hapless or otherwise.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> But what do you think about the specific things butchersapron has mentioned about his book and/or many of the other specific criticisms of his actions etc which people have pointed out?



i havent seen those posts, will have a look at them, maybe. Butchers probably made up his mind about Russell _before _he read the book though. I also doubt he would be moved or even convinced in any way. Butchers is like a paid critic



andysays said:


> Do you think someone who comes out with these various things mentioned and who you concede can be a conspiraloon should be treated with reverence (your word, post 1648), or do you think that he is a valid target for criticism?



I think he can be a conspiraloon but should be generally regarded as a national treasure. He is, shall we say, 'evolving' in his politics but an exciting voice of today's disaffected. We desperately need people like him being mouthy as there aint no one in music bothered anymore (and i mean _really _bothered...)


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> yep, youre right about that! i think he has made up for it now though, he is trying hard to be a good man. He has changed. That's what is exciting about the whole Russell Brand 'story' - he was lost and now is found - the greatest cliche of words, imaginable, has happened to a once egotistical, hopeless and hapless addict. I find that refreshing. And he is a force for good. Another thing, you think the Rubberbandits would get mixed up with someone transparent? get to fuck!



You may say I'm a redeemer. But I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us. And the world will be as one.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> yep, youre right about that! i think he has made up for it now though, he is trying hard to be a good man. He has changed. That's what is exciting about the whole Russell Brand 'story' - he was lost and now is found - the greatest cliche of words, imaginable, has happened to a once egotistical, hopeless and hapless addict. I find that refreshing. And he is a force for good. Another thing, you think the Rubberbandits would get mixed up with someone transparent? get to fuck!



'ill never do it again'


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you _quite sure_ that you've read Revolution?



have you read it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> We desperately need people like him being mouthy as there aint no one in music bothered anymore (and i mean _really _bothered...)


not since pete doherty anyway i suppose.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> 'ill never do it again'



who, you?


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> you joking? no way am i gonna summarise it for you, so you and others can sit there with your armchair analysis and sneery comments. Thats what you want to do, enit?



Your failure to contribute to the information revolution has been noted.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

I'm tempted to go out and buy a copy tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I'm tempted to go out and buy a copy tbh.


wait til after xmas and it'll be a fiver

e2a: brand must be the only radical who's waited till the festive season's nigh before releasing his call to arms. unless someone knows better, perhaps lenin's xmas theses or something.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> who, you?



I was referring to your 'hes changed now' shtick


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> not since pete doherty anyway i suppose.



this threads gotten really shit again with the bored antagonists posting shite. See yiz later


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> have you read it?


My god, you're not even reading the thread never mind the book. Yes i've read it and i'm not all convinced that you have considering you've mentioned him talking about the rapist hoax call in the book when i don't remember it even appearing in it at all.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I was referring to your 'hes changed now' shtick



you dont know much about Russell Brand. I mean, no offence, but you seem very judgmental too, dismissive and ill informed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> this threads gotten really shit again with the bored antagonists posting shite. See yiz later


yes it's always shit when idle people interfere with your idols.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> you dont know much about Russell Brand. I mean, no offence, but you seem very judgmental too, dismissive and ill informed.


if you say you're off then on your way.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> My god, you're not even reading the thread never mind the book. Yes i've read it and i'm not all convinced that you have considering you've mentioned him talking about the rapist hoax call when i don't remember it even appearing in the book.



i havent read all the thread butchers. You do it for us. What did you think of his section on his drug addiction and searching for the 'God' factor?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> you dont know much about Russell Brand. I mean, no offence, but you seem very judgmental too, dismissive and ill informed.


oh - and despite all your knowledge of him you knew nothing of his prank call to the rape line. which makes me think you're lying about lessons from that sorry event being in his magnum opus.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes it's always shit when idle people interfere with your idols.



you havent read the book and are just sat there bored. Dont slag something off till you know what yer on about


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i havent read all the thread butchers. You do it for us. What did you think of his section on his drug addiction and searching for the 'God' factor?


so see you later is cheesyspeak for i'll be around for some time to bandy words with you lot.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> oh - and despite all your knowledge of him you knew nothing of his prank call to the rape line. which makes me think you're lying about lessons from that sorry event being in his magnum opus.



i dont read the Daily Mail. that was from 6 years ago enit. I got interested in what he has to say around 2009.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> you havent read the book and are just sat there bored. Dont slag something off till you know what yer on about


as i say in my post 1698 you knew nothing of the call to the rape line. nothing. nada. fuck all. so don't sit there _you ignoramus_ and pontificate solely on the basis of the case for the defence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i dont read the Daily Mail. that was from 6 years ago enit. I got interested in what he has to say around 2009.


the first 35 years of his life were of no interest to you.


----------



## FNG (Dec 12, 2014)

I would have thought that after Maiden Square, most people who are politically minded would be concerned about getting in bed with conspiraloons and neo facists, particularly  if you were espousing peaceful revolution.
 People whose worldview and manifesto wasn't shaped by the 12 point program and NLP that is.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i havent read all the thread butchers. You do it for us. What did you think of his section on his drug addiction and searching for the 'God' factor?


He doesn't mention the god factor - he mentions the x factor numerous times though. You've not read it. As i suspected as soon as you said you have. You've read one of his other books and are trying to blag it.


----------



## andysays (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i havent seen those posts, will have a look at them, maybe. Butchers probably made up his mind about Russell _before _he read the book though. I also doubt he would be moved or even convinced in any way. Butchers is like a paid critic
> 
> I think he can be a conspiraloon but should be generally regarded as a national treasure. He is, shall we say, 'evolving' in his politics but an exciting voice of today's disaffected. We desperately need people like him being mouthy as there aint no one in music bothered anymore (and i mean _really _bothered...)



Oh dearie, dearie me...

Have you actually read the thread you're commenting on? The stuff I'm referring to was in the quote from butchers in the post where I tagged you and which you responded to.

And you've got the front to berate people for not reading Brand's book, and to accuse butchers of having made up his mind before he read it - you are repeatedly refusing to address any substantive issue, and resorting to vacuous guff about "national treasure", both pretty indicative of someone who has utterly made up their mind and nothing no-one says is going to change it one little bit.

Brand is a bit of a tosser, IMO, but even he really doesn't deserve acolytes as idiotic and cringemaking as you 

*insert puking emoticon here*


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Oh dearie, dearie me...
> 
> Have you actually read the thread you're commenting on? The stuff I'm referring to was in the quote from butchers in the post where I tagged you and which you responded to.
> 
> ...


doherty doesn't deserve such feeble support either.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> My god, you're not even reading the thread never mind the book. Yes i've read it and i'm not all convinced that you have considering you've mentioned him talking about the rapist hoax call in the book when i don't remember it even appearing in it at all.



To be fair butchers I think she went and looked it up when it was mentioned on here. And dismissive and judgemental Cheesypoof?  When it comes to egotistical celebrity conspiraloons yes I am. Also I haven't actually said that he is a charlatan etc, I suggest you go back and read what I have said because just a few pages ago I was saying that Michael moore books helped me get interested in politics. I am actually think of buying brands book for that reason, to see what is actually said in it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> To be fair butchers I think she went and looked it up when it was mentioned on here. And dismissive and judgemental?  When it comes to egotistical celebrity conspiraloons yes I am. Also I haven't actually said that he is a charlatan etc, I suggest you go back and read what I have said because just a few pages ago I was saying that Michael moore books helped me get interested in politics. I am actually think of buying brands book for that reason, to see what is actually said in it.


for god's sake wait till the new year


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> as i say in my post 1698 you knew nothing of the call to the rape line. nothing. nada. fuck all. so don't sit there _you ignoramus_ and pontificate solely on the basis of the case for the defence.



You gettin all pious then Pickmans? very good at the old righteousness enit? Suppose you thought the Australian prank calling DJ's who called a hospital pretending to be the queen (when the nurse afterwards killed herself for unconnected reasons and a history of depression), were also evil folks, and should have been proper condemned, enit? you suck!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> To be fair butchers I think she went and looked it up when it was mentioned on here. And dismissive and judgemental Cheesypoof?  When it comes to egotistical celebrity conspiraloons yes I am. Also I haven't actually said that he is a charlatan etc, I suggest you go back and read what I have said because just a few pages ago I was saying that Michael moore books helped me get interested in politics. I am actually think of buying brands book for that reason, to see what is actually said in it.



fair enough. Read it, i'm interested in your views, and dont mean offence to you, sorry.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> fair enough. Read it, i'm interested in your views, and dont mean offence to you, sorry.



No problem.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> You gettin all pious then Pickmans? very good at the old righteousness enit? Suppose you thought the Australian prank calling DJ's who called a hospital pretending to be the queen (when the nurse afterwards killed herself for unconnected reasons and a history of depression), were also evil folks, and should have been proper condemned, enit? you suck!


are you saying i did, or are you saying you suppose i did?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I watched bits of it, QT. Rotating band of arseholes.



Also the name of a CIA torture technique. The rotating arsehole band, that is, not QT. Although lets face it, not even the CIA would stoop so low as to inflict QT on people.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 12, 2014)

articul8 said:


> 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.


Better than onanism imagining Iraqi kids with no arms and legs. #partyofbutchers


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> for god's sake wait till the new year


Better than that, see if it's in the library...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> Better than that, see if it's in the library...


it might be in a publick library, i don't suppose i'll ever see it in a library i work in. unless it's going in the pulping box. or i get a job in a copyright library.

but even if it's in a publick library, wait six months and you'll be able to pick it up for a quid in the sale.


----------



## FNG (Dec 12, 2014)

#rejectedlenonlyrics


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

#rejectedlennonlyrics


----------



## FNG (Dec 12, 2014)

too slow to type too drunk too care
night all 
x


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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. ..?



He's not calling for a revolution. Saying "I want a revolution" or even "I'm calling for a revolution" isn't actually doing so. To call for a revolution means actually giving the people you're relying on to revolt some kind of guidance as to what to do, not just blah-ing out "I'm calling for a revolution, mmkay?".


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's not calling for a revolution. Saying "I want a revolution" or even "I'm calling for a revolution" isn't actually doing so. To call for a revolution means actually giving the people you're relying on to revolt some kind of guidance as to what to do, not just blah-ing out "I'm calling for a revolution, mmkay?".


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

Perhaps I will just wait for further animated extracts from the book


----------



## xenon (Dec 12, 2014)

Jean-Luc where are you now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

xenon said:


> Jean-Luc where are you now?


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

Ah, thanks for setting up the perfect Leonard Nimoy song.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

elbows said:


> Ah, thanks for setting up the perfect Leonard Nimoy song.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 12, 2014)

It's not really about Brand all this huff and puff is it? I mean if you met this fella down the pub/clubbing/at work he would probs be quite good company and at least you'd think 'well he's not Ukip and/or the fash'. I mean forgive me for speaking broadly but he seems kind of crusty. He's thin, talks about "spirituality" which doesn't exist, flirts with Cps, but doesn't like the system and so on. It's all a bit crusty to me. Personally I still don't get the strong feelings either way.

All this furore about him it's really about fame, media, today, celebrity isn't it? And powerlessness. Our powerlessness.

If I saw him in the street I wouldn't verbally abuse him like I do people from the Labour/Tory party/Lib Dems. I mean, he means well I think, but it's not really about him is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


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



There's no harm in drawing people into political debate, but rehashing old grievances like Walmart kind of misses the point that the issue about their treatment of staff and suppliers is *massively* well-publicised already in every country that Walmart own outlets.




> So what? if it comes across that way to you?  you wont believe me if i say i happen to be crazy about music.



Why wouldn't I believe you? I may not agree with your choice of icons, but I'm well aware that many people (including myself) are "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.



Oh please! Becoming cynical is a natural phenomenon as you're exposed to more and more of how shit some things in life can be - cynicism is a protection against disappointment. There's an old saying - "hope for the best, but plan for the worst", which is probably the most effective piece of advice anyone can ever listen to.
As for being sensitive, you don't appear to have worried about that in the past when it's been *you* pissing on peoples' parades.
Try not to be a hypocrite, eh? 




> 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?



I'll repeat myself yet again. In my experience celebrities need to walk a fine line in supporting causes, not because of themselves, but because of the damage that *can* be caused to such causes if the media decide to be cunts. I'm not talking about anonymity, I'm talking about Brand choosing his battles with the above in mind, *especially* if the media start calling him on some of his conspiracy theory beliefs.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> If I saw him in the street I wouldn't verbally abuse him like I do people from the Labour/Tory party/Lib Dems. I mean, he means well I think, but it's not really about him is it?


it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>




Hmmm.
*They* are "on the starship enterprise, under captain kirk", not under jean-Luc Picard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmmm.
> *They* are "on the starship enterprise, under captain kirk", not under jean-Luc Picard.


couldn't find one for jlp


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He doesn't mention the god factor - he mentions the x factor numerous times though. You've not read it. As i suspected as soon as you said you have. You've read one of his other books and are trying to blag it.



He mentions the God factor...... And not the X factor. You are obviously taking the piss and mustnt have read it at all....


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> He mentions the God factor...... And not the X factor. You are obviously taking the piss and mustnt have read it at all....


strange how you say it's in the book about the lessons he drew from that rape call yet you were unaware of the call from the book. i am very tempted to call bullshit on you having read it at all.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> You gettin all pious then Pickmans? very good at the old righteousness enit? Suppose you thought the Australian prank calling DJ's who called a hospital pretending to be the queen (when the nurse afterwards killed herself for unconnected reasons and a history of depression), were also evil folks, and should have been proper condemned, enit? you suck!



Evil no, stupid thoughtless and worthy of condemnation yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> He mentions the God factor...... And not the X factor. You are obviously taking the piss and mustnt have read it at all....


Is that right?




			
				Russel Brand in Revolution said:
			
		

> I have it in me, this extremist, destructive impulse. When the pie-eyed teens in the school hall, where I, decades before, had grasped the tendril with which I would swing out of Essex, like a tubby Tarzan, look to me full of X Factor ambition and Xbox distraction and tell me that they “want to be famous too,” I wince, but I want to tell them they’ve been swindled. That they are being horribly misled by the dominant cultural narratives.





> West Ham’s results, the Oscars, X Factor, even high cultural musings on Piketty or Roth or Bach or Beckett are not more important than the physical reality of our oneness. Anything that directs consciousness away from that truth instead of towards it is bollocks and it has to go. Don’t worry, I panicked myself there a bit. I’m not suggesting a year-zero book-burning immolation of all culture. I’d really miss West Ham, and, to be honest, there’s nothing wrong with X Factor, in its place.





> Why are we pretending that we don’t live in a culture where, in spite of record-low voter turnouts in political elections, millions of people every Saturday night demonstrate their democratic right to vote for who they want to progress on X Factor?



Mentions of the god factor = zero.

He does though, mention it in other books of his - the ones you have read. Because you haven't read this one.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

I really don't like the way that Brand writes, urgh


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

_Anything that directs consciousness away from that truth instead of towards it is bollocks and it has to go._

Why?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> ...you haven't read this one.



Christ! I couldn't even read past the first line of the passages you just quoted. That really is awful.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

I think that people over exaggerate about the way that Brand speaks, which is alright as it goes but my god that writing is pretentious as fuck


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

Three more utterly damning quotations. The last being the most serious of course.



> Thanks, Alain De Botton, for being such a cherry-lipped clever clogs and nudging me toward the light and away from town square executions.





> Johann Hari, you tireless, brilliant, adrenalized busybody, your research, passion, advice, and constant interfering and advancement of your own gay agenda has been thrilling and helpful and I know your book, Chasing the Scream, will be a hit.





> Usama Hasan, Tariq Ramadan, Dave Boyle and Laurence Easeman for your unused but greatly appreciated contributions—it was only deadlines that stymied us.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Three more utterly damning quotations. The last being the most serious of course.



Fuck. I actually didn't think this of him.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2014)

Tariq Ramadan is also no stranger to nasty reactionary politics


----------



## cantsin (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Three more utterly damning quotations. The last being the most serious of course.



fuck - I guess at least it means he ditched Eastmans contribution before it made it to print -  baffling  nonetheless - the million $$$ question for me is whether anyone was pointing out the facts about Eastman ( ie : Fash FB activity etc ), and RB was ignoring them, or were people not so aware of LE 's pedigree at the time ?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Three more utterly damning quotations. The last being the most serious of course.



I could probably do a google to find out, but who are those people in the last quote?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

cantsin said:


> fuck - I guess at least it means he ditched Eastmans contribution before it made it to print - fecking baffling  nonetheless - the million $$$ question for me is whether anyone was pointing out the facts about Eastman ( ie : Fash FB activity etc ), and RB was ignoring them, or were people not so aware of LE 's pedigree at the time ?


No idea on that front - i imagine people telling Brand not to go near someone like that is quite likely to push him towards them though. If they did and finding out was the reason he was ditched before publication then that opens up more questions about the Brand/Easeman event planned for post-publication.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I could probably do a google to find out, but who are those people in the last quote?


The last one, the very last one is far-right prick. Dave Boyle is an interesting bloke who i met years ago though the football supporters groups.The first two i don't know too much about but i do know Ramadan has been placed in the dieudonne milieu - i.e far right anti-semitism, beyond left and right etc


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Fuck. I actually didn't think this of him.



Apologies for being tedious and somewhat annoying, but you probably sort of did think this of him, at least in terms of the final quote, because I posted it on October 25th and you liked my post.

#397


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> yep, youre right about that! i think he has made up for it now though, he is trying hard to be a good man. He has changed. That's what is exciting about the whole Russell Brand 'story' - he was lost and now is found - the greatest cliche of words, imaginable, has happened to a once egotistical, hopeless and hapless addict. I find that refreshing. And he is a force for good. Another thing, you think the Rubberbandits would get mixed up with someone transparent? get to fuck!


What are rubberbandits?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

http://tariqramadan.com/english


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 12, 2014)

elbows said:


> Apologies for being tedious and somewhat annoying, but you probably sort of did think this of him, at least in terms of the final quote, because I posted it on October 25th and you liked my post.
> 
> #397



To be fair, I just googled that Easeman guy only to find out that I'd previously visited a link to a story about him and completely forgotten.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

elbows said:


> Apologies for being tedious and somewhat annoying, but you probably sort of did think this of him, at least in terms of the final quote, because I posted it on October 25th and you liked my post.
> 
> #397



I probably did yes. But I don't think I read it properly. I knew he had some involvement with easeman but didn't know (or remember) that he had had his contribution 'stymeed' with that being the stated reason. That said I am quite forgetful at the moment


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> To be fair, I just googled that Easeman guy only to find out that I'd previously visited a link to a story about him and completely forgotten.


I can hardly remember what day of the week it is ffs


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I can hardly remember what day of the week it is ffs



Monday.


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

No matter, I'm sure that was just my ego blowing my own trumpet that I posted that quote on this thread during the original fallout from the Easeman debate invitation.

At the time, I seem to remember it was rather hard to find Easeman expressing his most dubious thoughts in great depth on the internet, I mostly had just the damning snippets that people had screenshotted from his twitter or whatever, and his subsequent crying about being smeared.

However it seems he then gave some dodgy internet radio interview, which I haven't forced myself to listen to, but I think the written synopsis for it is rather telling in oh so many ways, no room for doubt here, ticks all the boxes:



> Laurence Easeman is a long time researcher, filmmaker and anti-usury social justice campaigner. He is an activist for Monetary Reform and Land Reform through the abolition of Usury, the creation of Interest-Free Credit and a contemporary system of Tribal Anarchy. At the core of Laurence's work is a struggle against the cabal of Private International Bankers that have a monopoly over our money supply. He believes that if we are to experience any real sense of freedom then we must find solutions to that monopoly, because banking is nothing more than institutionalized usury. We begin by discussing Laurence’s timeline and how he became interested in understanding the hidden mechanisms of banking and money. He describes how once he uncovered the truth behind the fraudulent mortgage industry, a mega-scam essential to the enslavement of the Western population. He decided to test his personal power and challenge an eviction notice issued by the bank carrying his home mortgage, bringing him considerable media attention. Laurence explains how at this time he was inspired by the Dennis Wise documentary The Greatest Story Never Told, which led him to produce the now viral YouTube video entitled The People vs. The Banks. Then, Laurence discusses his recent appearance in the headlines when a smear campaign was launched against him following a botched panel discussion with Russell Brand. Later, Laurence shares his views on what he calls “Revolution Light,” a trap of the Marxists that is restraining the people from forming any true sense of a revolution because any form of openly questioning the constructs and speaking out is so quickly demonized. We wrap up with Laurence sharing some thoughts on the global elitists’ agenda of pushing mass immigration to a crisis point, causing the destabilization of the west and the breeding out of native European peoples.



Anyway I went straight to that page on that site, so I haven't checked out what else that radio station is peddling or who is behind it, so I shall break the link for now:

http://www.redicecreations.co m/radio/2014/11/RIR-141124.php


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I think that people over exaggerate about the way that Brand speaks, which is alright as it goes but my god that writing is pretentious as fuck


over exaggerate? you're talking hyperbolics!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 12, 2014)

First post on his twitter is some nutty shit about 'Cultural Marxism'. 

eta: Easeman, that is, not Brand. Give it a few years and who knows though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I really don't like the way that Brand writes, urgh





cynicaleconomy said:


> Christ! I couldn't even read past the first line of the passages you just quoted. That really is awful.



He does sometimes come across like he's delighting in his own erudition and vocabulary so deeply that he doesn't realise how wanky he's coming across. He has these fits of being a sort of Poundland Will Self, but without the irony.

And yes, I'm totally aware of what a smug cunt the above makes me sound.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He does sometimes come across like he's delighting in his own erudition and vocabulary so deeply that he doesn't realise how wanky he's coming across. He has these fits of being a sort of Poundland Will Self, but without the irony.
> 
> And yes, I'm totally aware of what a smug cunt the above makes me sound.


you sound like a poundland terry eagleton


----------



## elbows (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He does sometimes come across like he's delighting in his own erudition and vocabulary so deeply that he doesn't realise how wanky he's coming across. He has these fits of being a sort of Poundland Will Self, but without the irony.



Nice 

I watched one of his videos where he was quite obviously aware of how cringeworthy a name The Trews was for his youtube thing, but what the hell, call it that anyway decide his frontal lobes.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 12, 2014)

elbows said:


> Nice
> 
> I watched one of his videos where he was quite obviously aware of how cringeworthy a name The Trews was for his youtube thing, but what the hell, call it that anyway decide his frontal lobes.



Cringey is the word of the hour when it comes to Brand. If Ricky Gervais was still funny then he might have invented him. It still remains to be seen if Brand isn't an entirely fictional construction.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 12, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> Better than that, see if it's in the library...


There are certain online 'shops' where you can get an ebook version for free.


----------



## FNG (Dec 12, 2014)

Just reading an excerpt, from the prologue



> I’ve greeted a cavalcade of gleaming false idols like a jam-jar native, prostrate before the great white master.


 this is the guy that did a documentary with sunny Handel about Black Pete but finds this an acceptable metaphor?

 Blokes a fraud.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

emanymton said:


> There are certain online 'shops' where you can get an ebook version for free.


given the excerpts which have been posted i am not sure i'd want a copy, free or no


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>





Some sort of Rasputin figure, convert to Islam and become Yusef Brand


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I really don't like the way that Brand writes, urgh


I think he has infected Enda Kenny somehow. Check out this gibberish.



Spoiler


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

It's like Edna stitched a number of beat haikus together


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>





He is pulling no punches there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's like Edna stitched a number of beat haikus together


#parklife


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

I showed my dad a couple of Martin Wright videos on youtube and he is convinced it's a comedy character, he likes him and what he has to say but in the same way people who misunderstood Alf Garnet did


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's like Edna stitched a number of beat haikus together


It could do with some jazzy accompaniment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

copliker said:


> It could do with some jazzy accompaniment.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

copliker said:


> It could do with some jazzy accompaniment.


somebody will autotune it wont they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> somebody will autotune it wont they?


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

This youtube doubler thing will do for now. Nice. No time to edit it properly.


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wonder what trevhagl thinks of Brand?



he's a top man


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

copliker said:


> This youtube doubler thing will do for now. Nice. No time to edit it properly.


 some grand beat matching from yer man there


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 12, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> he's a top man


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> he's a top man


He's certainly made a Primark, but might still go for a Burton


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

JimW said:


> He's certainly made a Primark, but might still go for a Burton


who is next?


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> who is next?


Who gives a FCUK?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2014)

Cheesy has gone a bit quiet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> who is next?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Cheesy has gone a bit quiet.


after her utter humiliation on this thread perhaps she's decided discretion is the better part of valour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

JimW said:


> He's certainly made a Primark, but might still go for a Burton


d'you think he'll ever go as far as a savile row?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> d'you think he'll ever go as far as a savile row?





Pickman's model said:


> d'you think he'll ever go as far as a savile row?


Community


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Community


he'll take a chance on that


----------



## Mation (Dec 12, 2014)

Leader


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Posh Lee


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

teacher


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

nurse


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Matron


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> d'you think he'll ever go as far as a savile row?



What is it we expect from Russel Brand, surely some sort of consciousness is better than none.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Coma


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Coma


chameleon


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

girlfriend


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 12, 2014)

What the fuck happened to Urban in the last few hours?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

who


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Rubber dolly


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> who


explain


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

ferries


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Bow


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

road


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Protest


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

vote


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Class War


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

living legends


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 12, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> What the fuck happened to Urban in the last few hours?



UrBrand 75


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Bone!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

dirge!


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Lucy


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

parsons


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Sister


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

sledge


----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

There's a fantastic stunt at the start of this where a lad jumps out of a moving car. 

Edit: just watched it again and the jump isn't as fantastic as I remember


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Is it better than Big Brother Big Mouth?


----------



## Mation (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2014)

Don't be silly


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

Games


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)




----------



## JimW (Dec 12, 2014)

Dog's breakfast


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2014)

I fucked a sheep, I fucked a goat


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2014)

TopCat said:


> I fucked a sheep, I fucked a goat


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 12, 2014)

Russell's latest video...let's all watch it then criticize.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2014)

already posted that you slow cunt


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> already posted that you slow cunt


All I see is music videos.


----------



## chilango (Dec 12, 2014)

Fwiw my earlier statement needs amending. Brand came up in conversation this evening. I quote:

*Discussion on celebrities you coulda/shoulda shagged.*


fColleague: "Who's that guy who's started going on about politics?"

Me: "Russell Brand?"

Colleague: "yeah,him. He tried hitting on my mate. He was a really sleazy bastard."

There ya go.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> politicianicity



 second


----------



## Humberto (Dec 13, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Russell's latest video...let's all watch it then criticize.




Could be a set up. Could be that he is a ticking time-bomb where people are investing hope and significance into a man few here would deem trustworthy. Could be that he acts as a safety valve as neoliberal austerity drives hit home. Is it possible to get rich and famous without being a backstabber? Time will tell.

I don't like him for reasons others have articulated and will be apparent to you if you have followed the thread recently. He is a supporter of David Icke which tells you a lot. The sooner he fades away from the attention of those on the left politically the better.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 13, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Could be a set up. Could be that he is a ticking time-bomb where people are investing hope and significance into a man few here would deem trustworthy. Could be that he acts as a safety valve as neoliberal austerity drives hit home. Is it possible to get rich and famous without being a backstabber? Time will tell.
> 
> I don't like him for reasons others have articulated and will be apparent to you if you have followed the thread recently. He is a supporter of David Icke which tells you a lot. The sooner he fades away from the attention of those on the left politically the better.


What do you think about the video though?


----------



## keybored (Dec 13, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> What do you think about the video though?


I managed to get to 0:45 before feeling sick. I only had a vague dislike for RB before (I don't watch much TV) but that clip has ignited a burning hatred for the cunt.


----------



## rekil (Dec 13, 2014)

I got as far as the bit where he uses a report by PressTv, the Iranian state channel. How is associating striking firefighters with the Iranian state anything but actively damaging?

Floggity woggity.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 13, 2014)

copliker said:


> I got as far as the bit where he uses a report by PressTv, the Iranian state channel. How is associating striking firefighters with the Iranian state anything but actively damaging?
> 
> Floggity woggity.


i understood it that it was the only footage they could find, that the event wasn't covered on uk tv. i don't know if this is true as i don't watch tv news unless i catch a bit of it before match of the day on saturday.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

My gawd, Russel Brand is getting street politics onto the mainstream._ 

Therefore he must be dodgy._


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

copliker said:


> I got as far as the bit where he uses a report by PressTv, the Iranian state channel. How is associating striking firefighters with the Iranian state anything but actively damaging?
> 
> Floggity woggity.



There is a reason your called a copliker


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Therefore he must be is dodgy in quite a few aspects if you actually read the thread


Cfy


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> parsons



Your form of struggle must make your union proud!!


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> Cfy



He is getting politics into the mainstream, is that such a bad thing??


----------



## FNG (Dec 13, 2014)

Whose politics? his view of individual communities organised locally communicating globally, specifically one that gives breathing space to the likes of David Icke and fellow travellers and bigs up ISIS and even exagerates their achievements RE:taking Damascus on the grounds of "Anyone But America" sounds like and smells like Bloc Identitaire.

 Now for Brand that his utopian micro society, non sexist, non racist, where the chicks and the jam jar natives can hang out,:sorry about the racist and sexist language ,yeah i'm working on that! can peacefully co exist with Ickes lizard baiters and seven shades of fash isn't a problem, he can tailor his utopia through meditation maybe give icke a jimmy saville wig and turn the kylie minogue up to 11. In the Mind State of Brand anything is possible.


----------



## andysays (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> He is getting politics into the mainstream, is that such a bad thing??



I think it depends what you mean by politics, and what you mean by getting it into the mainstream.

He's certainly getting significant media coverage for himself, and perhaps a little for a few causes/issues, though as has been mentioned umpteem times now the coverage of the causes tends to be mediated through his celebrity involvement rather than being coverage of the causes/issues themselves.

And the version of politics which is getting into the mainstream, or rather the one which is already dominant and which is being re-enforced by his involvement, is unfortunately a top-down, elitest, celebritised version, rather than the bottom-up, inclusive, participatory one that many of us would like to see (and which Brand appears to think he's encouraging).

All of this is a consequence of the fact that Brand is using his celebrity status to "do politics" and would be problematic whoever the celebrity was; that's before we even get into specifics about his personal baggage, including some of his dodgy behaviour, statements and associations.

If this is your and Brand's idea of getting politics into the mainstream *in a serious and productive way* I don't think much of it...


----------



## albionism (Dec 13, 2014)

I wish more like minded people in the public eye would come out and stir shit up.
How can anyone famous claim to be "progressive" and not use the luck/privilege
of fame to attack the system at every given opportunity?


----------



## chilango (Dec 13, 2014)

The language that is used to defend/support Brand is illustrative.

Talk of bringing issues/politics "into the mainstream" suggest (to me at least) an upside down perspective. The job for the " left" or activists or whatever is surely not to persuade the "mainstream" (yuk) that these causes are significant but rather to identify and pursue causes people already have?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

albionism said:


> I wish more like minded people in the public eye would come out and stir shit up.
> How can anyone famous claim to be "progressive" and not use the luck/privilege
> of fame to attack the system at every given opportunity?


very easily.

next.


----------



## albionism (Dec 13, 2014)

yeah, i know..


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Your form of struggle must make your union proud!!


 altho a member of a union i do not engage in struggle to gain the approval of the union hierarchy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

chilango said:


> Fwiw my earlier statement needs amending. Brand came up in conversation this evening. I quote:
> 
> *Discussion on celebrities you coulda/shoulda shagged.*
> 
> ...


seems to have something in common with one g galloway then


----------



## J Ed (Dec 13, 2014)

FNG said:


> d bigs up ISIS



Where does he do that?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2014)

Mungy said:


> i understood it that it was the only footage they could find, that the event wasn't covered on uk tv. i don't know if this is true as i don't watch tv news unless i catch a bit of it before match of the day on saturday.


There's loads of footage of the strike - filmed by FBU members and supporters - why must it be a proper news channel for Brand to show it - esp if he's making a point of providing alternative news coverage? Fair play for doing this but again it's coming with problems.

There's two questions about _claiming_  that he doesn't know who presstv are -1) if he doesn't know it yet again shows how gullible he is - Presstv is the iranian regimes state broadcaster - the iranian regime violently persecutes trade unionists (indeed the FBU have condemned them for this) you don't want to see what they do to gays and drug users  2) If he did know and didn't care - and his book suggests a slight anti-imperialist sympathy for the Iranian regime:

 "he people of Iran have been under constant attack since their regime change in the early fifties" - note he doesn't mention they've been attack from the various regimes within the state since then - just the US - and his history is utterly wrong given the US support for the shah for  30 years of this period.

I don't believe he didn't know - given that presstv along with RT and the usual suspects (assange/kesier/icke/zetigeist/etc) are bang in the centre of his world view.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> What do you think about the video though?


He needs to wash his hair.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There's loads of footage of the strike - filmed by FBU members and supporters - why must it be a proper news channel for Brand to show it - esp if he's making a point of providing alternative news coverage? Fair play for doing this but again it's coming with problems.
> 
> There's two questions about _claiming_  that he doesn't know who presstv are -1) if he doesn't know it yet again shows how gullible he is - Presstv is the iranian regimes state broadcaster - the iranian regime violently persecutes trade unionists (indeed the FBU have condemned them for this) you don't want to see what they do to gays and drug users  2) If he did know and didn't care - and his book suggests a slight anti-imperialist sympathy for the Iranian regime.
> 
> I don't believe he didn't know - given that presstv along with RT and the usual suspects (assange/kesier/icke/zetigeist/etc) are bang in the centre of his world view.



perhaps he's not bothered about the source, perhaps the fact that iran was the only proper news channel the carried the story is why it was chosen, to illustrate that our media are biased. personally, i'm not interesting in dissecting everything rb writes or says, what he motivations are, who he follows on social media sites, what books he has read etc etc etc. i don't think i have the patience or cognitive faculties required. though i do find it interesting reading the conclusions of others.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2014)

If he's not bothered he should be. And the fbu fund a communications dept making videos just for this. Presstv is not a proper news channel either given it broadcasts anti semitic filth.


----------



## coley (Dec 13, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Russell's latest video...let's all watch it then criticize.



While it gives the FBU a platform, his presentational style comes over as juvenile and self promotional.
The final bit where Wrack is cajoled into demanding we subscribe is especially irritating.
On the whole, if the WC has reached the state where we need this type of promotion, then we are essentially screwed.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2014)

I agree with the 'into the mainstream' stuff, it's as if nobody knew about any of this before! How patronising is that!  I agree that it's nice to have a celeb come out with vaguely leftist stuff but loads of them were doing that anyway, like the Fonz, but in a much less self promotey way AFAIK. Why have there got to be celebs to make it mainstream? What an awful view of the general public. This is the country where over 2 million people went on demonstrations against the Iraq war ffs


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2014)

Out of interest what does rb say when the antisemitic stuff is pointed out to him? 

Did he ever condemn that pickup artist he was posing with by the way?


----------



## coley (Dec 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I agree with the 'into the mainstream' stuff, it's as if nobody knew about any of this before! How patronising is that!  I agree that it's nice to have a celeb come out with vaguely leftist stuff but loads of them were doing that anyway, like the Fonz, but in a much less self promotey way AFAIK. Why have there got to be celebs to make it mainstream? What an awful view of the general public. This is the country where over 2 million people went on demonstrations against the Iraq war ffs


And got totally ignored for their troubles, that's the problem we have a political class who feel they are totally invincible, and it will take a lot more than the waffling of  a few celebs to change that.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2014)

coley said:


> And got totally ignored for their troubles, that's the problem we have a political class who feel they are totally invincible, and it will take a lot more than the waffling of  a few celebs to change that.



Exactly.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Out of interest what does rb say when the antisemitic stuff is pointed out to him?
> 
> Did he ever condemn that pickup artist he was posing with by the way?


Didn't he say he had no idea who he was (which is fair, unlike not knowing who pressTV are) and didn't want to be associated with him or was that someone else?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 13, 2014)

coley said:


> And got totally ignored for their troubles, that's the problem we have a political class who feel they are totally invincible, and it will take a lot more than the waffling of  a few celebs to change that.



I think celebs are not a useful part of the change that is needed, I think their role fits too nicely with the individualist liberal politics of Thatcherism and neo liberalism (see also: intersectionalism) to be welcomed at a strategy level.

There may be times when tactically celeb involvement is good (fund raising for example), but the uncritical welcoming of brand smacks to me of a strategic not tactical choice, and I think it leads us further in the direction we've been going for 40 years, not somewhere better.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 13, 2014)




----------



## albionism (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> very easily.
> 
> next.


Yeah, i know, but wouldn't you be using it? Every time i was on the box or 
conducting an interview, i'd be on their case.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If he's not bothered he should be. And the fbu fund a communications dept making videos just for this. Presstv is not a proper news channel either given it broadcasts anti semitic filth.


by proper i meant traditional tv channel, which i am assuming presstv is. had you not mentioned it i wouldn't have known who presstv were. if what you have said is true, and i am taking it on face value that it is, i find the irony of the only tv broadcast footage that could be found to illustrate the news that firemen were in dispute was from a country who persecutes trade unionists a thing of macabre beauty.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 13, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I think celebs are not a useful part of the change that is needed, I think their role fits too nicely with the individualist liberal politics of Thatcherism and neo liberalism (see also: intersectionalism) to be welcomed at a strategy level.
> 
> There may be times when tactically celeb involvement is good (fund raising for example), but the uncritical welcoming of brand smacks to me of a strategic not tactical choice, and I think it leads us further in the direction we've been going for 40 years, not somewhere better.



what i understand rb to be doing is trying to get people to engage in activism in their community, be involved in things going on around us. if people did that - those who didn't know that their actions could make a difference - i think that would be a good thing. what am i missing?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 13, 2014)

Of the book...well being a Russell Brand 'fangirl' as VP puts it, of _course_ I have read it!!  It's a pretty good (if a bit long, Utopian, idealistic, pedantic, at times eloquent, overtly wordy and at other times, sixth form schoolboyish) read). Theres a lot of referencing of 'that bloke Noam Chomsky' and stuff like that. He does a hell of a lot of referencing and ranting, like a student. Took me two weeks to get through it on the bus, but I liked the spiritual side that he seems terribly keen on.

Of the 'God' factor, well at one point he talks about how addicts are searching for this kind of oblivion which is the 'God' factor, and that's why they end up getting addicted. That seems to make sense, given his own stance on religion (he believes).  He seems to be on a spiritual quest for Truth. He is a bit of a lost man....flitting from one thing to another - it is the work of a hyperactive mind, at times, juvenile and fairly shallow, but a keen errant one.

Another thing which surprised me but made me chuckle was his dissection of the St Francis prayer, and how ironic  it were that Margaret Thatcher read it at her inauguration. And his blasting of Donald Trump as this superficial, fake who just happens to be skilled at making money, like Hungry Hippo. I wouldnt regard it as a masterpiece or real manifesto, but its something for us all to think about. I think he is halfway to reaching (spiritual) enlightenment (yes, you can laugh).


----------



## BigTom (Dec 13, 2014)

Mungy said:


> what i understand rb to be doing is trying to get people to engage in activism in their community, be involved in things going on around us. if people did that - those who didn't know that their actions could make a difference - i think that would be a good thing. what am i missing?


It relies on a top down media/celeb based organising strategy. If you want to build something that doesn't rely on that, it seems the wrong place to start.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


>




Umm haven't pressed play but that screen shot of him half naked on his sofa reminds me of peter dow
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/meet-the-lonely-heart-from-hell-1079428


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


>





Why does he do 'the trews' in various states of undress? hard to take anyone seriously, can you imagine Karl Marx or Chomsky doing talks in their jim jams..


----------



## Mungy (Dec 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> Why does he do 'the trews' in various states of undress? hard to take anyone seriously, can you imagine Karl Marx or Chomsky doing talks in their jim jams..


no idea. i often listen to the trews whilst browsing the interweb in another tab. besides, i have no interest in what he is or isn't wearing, it's what he is saying that's the important bit for me.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 13, 2014)

BigTom said:


> It relies on a top down media/celeb based organising strategy. If you want to build something that doesn't rely on that, it seems the wrong place to start.



he's not organising people, he's telling us to go out and get involved in local stuff. on youtube, are there any non-celeb channels that are saying the same sort of thing, highlighting issues, promoting local activism? if you or anyone else knows if there are, i would be interesting in watching/listening to them also.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

Cheesypoof you should have left it and stopped digging. you're not much of a fan if you never looked into the first 35 years of his life.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 13, 2014)

Mungy said:


> he's not organising people, he's telling us to go out and get involved in local stuff. on youtube, are there any non-celeb channels that are saying the same sort of thing, highlighting issues, promoting local activism? if you or anyone else knows if there are, i would be interesting in watching/listening to them also.


Nah, he is organising people in the stuff he's directly involved in, but that's not my point.

If you're relying on him to either get people involved in things you are interested in, or on him to find things to be involved with, then you are relying on a media led celeb culture to make things happen.

If you do this, then you can find yourself in a position where this is the only feed in to your activities (I think this is where we are now in a broad sense) and, for instance, you'll be chasing media attention for your activities as an end in itself.

So someone like brand seems good because he acts as a route in, but in doing so he reinforces a wider culture that keeps people out.

Imo the opportunity for this kind of organising was ~2009 to ~2012, after the financial crash, passing t social democracy in opposition to the austerity program. This failed, and in fact it's ukip who have then the opportunity. left labour was lost decades ago, green party and tusc have failed to do so, greens picked up a bit but not massive amounts.

Why? Imo because there's not the social pressure to create the political pressure for change, we need to build this first and that means rebuilding the communitarian (not sure this is the right word, opposite to individualism) ways of thinking/approaching problems.

For me, celebrity is not part of this.


----------



## coley (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> Cheesypoof you should have left it and stopped digging. you're not much of a fan if you never looked into the first 35 years of his life.


Ah but he's "changed" lessons have been learned


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you sound like a poundland terry eagleton



I'd give my eye-teeth to sound like a Poundland Terry Eagleton!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> he's a top man



So you're saying he works for Zionist lizard Philip Green, then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> My gawd, Russel Brand is getting street politics onto the mainstream._
> 
> Therefore he must be dodgy._



How is he "getting street politics into the mainstream"? 
The answer, of course, is that he isn't. He's churning out a mish-mash of opinions that *you* take to be "street politics", but which are actually, apart from his espousal of a handful of local causes, the same sort of _dreck_ that you'll hear politically-unaware teenagers trot out - "the system is corrupt, maaan"; "smash the system, maaan" and other neo-hippy bollocks.

It's not dodgy. It's inane.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> There is a reason your called a copliker



Yes, it's called "irony".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

albionism said:


> I wish more like minded people in the public eye would come out and stir shit up.
> How can anyone famous claim to be "progressive" and not use the luck/privilege
> of fame to attack the system at every given opportunity?



It's known as "defence of privilege". The majority of people who taste what it is like to *not* be treated like some sort of troglodyte, don't want to give that up. Brand is insulated enough by his fortune that he can play the game both ways for the time being, but he's no fucking Paul Robeson.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Out of interest what does rb say when the antisemitic stuff is pointed out to him?



Not a lot.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Cheesy has gone a bit quiet.



I was at my Christmas party last night!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 13, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What are rubberbandits?



Funny as fuck hip hop duo from Limerick


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

chilango said:


> The language that is used to defend/support Brand is illustrative.
> 
> Talk of bringing issues/politics "into the mainstream" suggest (to me at least) an upside down perspective. The job for the " left" or activists or whatever is surely not to persuade the "mainstream" (yuk) that these causes are significant but rather to identify and pursue causes people already have?



So if Socialism was mainstream you would considered it 'yuk', *ffs.



*


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think it depends what you mean by politics, and what you mean by getting it into the mainstream.
> 
> He's certainly getting significant media coverage for himself, and perhaps a little for a few causes/issues, though as has been mentioned umpteem times now the coverage of the causes tends to be mediated through his celebrity involvement rather than being coverage of the causes/issues themselves.
> 
> ...




So, would you prefer it, if done he do nothing?.

Each according to his ability and all that.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> How is he "getting street politics into the mainstream"?
> The answer, of course, is that he isn't. He's churning out a mish-mash of opinions that *you* take to be "street politics", but which are actually, apart from his espousal of a handful of local causes, the same sort of _dreck_ that you'll hear politically-unaware teenagers trot out - "the system is corrupt, maaan"; "smash the system, maaan" and other neo-hippy bollocks.
> 
> It's not dodgy.* It's inane*.



To you, perhaps, but if he strike an interest in younger less experienced people, surly that's a good thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

coley said:


> Ah but he's "changed" lessons have been learned


he's learned he effectively got away with the fascist salute, with the vile phonecalls, with the repeated sexism. it's all documented even if his groupies like Cheesypoof refuse to see it as a pattern of behaviour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> To you, perhaps, but if he strike an interest in younger less experienced people, surly that's a good thing.


if he has an interest in younger, less experienced people questions should be asked.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> altho a member of a union i do not engage in struggle to gain the approval of the union hierarchy.



Fvck the hierarchy


----------



## andysays (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> So, would you prefer it, if done he do nothing?.
> 
> Each according to his ability and all that.



Given the very limited ability you've shown on this thread to understand the arguments that others are making, to say anything of substance yourself, or to progress between crude either-someone-agrees-wholeheartedly-with-everything-Brand-says-and-does-or-they're-telling-him-to-do-nothing binary nonsense, I guess it would be unreasonable of me to expect anything better than this from you


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if he has an interest in younger, less experienced people questions should be asked.



If he gets them interested in Socialist politics, surly its a good thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> If he gets them interested in Socialist politics, surly its a good thing.


has he managed to interest anyone in socialist politicks tho?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> Given the very limited ability you've shown on this thread to understand the arguments that others are making, to say anything of substance yourself, or to progress between crude either-someone-agrees-wholeheartedly-with-everything-Brand-says-and-does-or-they're-telling-him-to-do-nothing binary nonsense, I guess it would be unreasonable of me to expect anything better than this from you



I take that as an insult. Perhaps thats what you intended?

uppa the JPF!!


----------



## chilango (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> So if Socialism was mainstream you would considered it 'yuk', *ffs.*



My "yuk" is towards the idea of the "mainstream" being an external other And towards the elitism and vanguardism implicit in this.

I don't give a fuck about Socialism but real change has to come from within the so-called mainstream not imposed from without by self-appointed missionaries.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

chilango said:


> My "yuk" is towards the idea of the "mainstream" being an external other And towards the elitism and vanguardism implicit in this.
> 
> *I don't give a fuck about Socialism* but real change has to come from within the so-called mainstream not imposed from without by self-appointed missionaries.



Awh ffs.

No elitism here, no.

Real change will be brought about be raising the collect consciousness.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> So if Socialism was mainstream you would considered it 'yuk', *ffs.*



It seems like you've invested in this idea of the dull, beige masses and the socialist-whateverists bringing change from the outside by your use of the 'mainstream.'


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> If he gets them interested in Socialist politics, surly its a good thing.



Problem is, it's not just 'socialist' politics. It's all the bonkers lizard stuff that lurks below the surface. I quite like Brand as a person and comedian, I just think he is dangerously ill-equipped to protect himself against dodgy influences that, in his naivety, he might end up falling for.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Awh ffs.
> 
> No elitism here, no.
> 
> Real change will be brought about be raising the collect consciousness.



Teach me, Little Lenin.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 13, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Problem is, it's not just 'socialist' politics. It's all the bonkers lizard stuff that lurks below the surface. I quite like Brand as a person and comedian, I just think he is dangerously ill-equipped to protect himself against dodgy influences that, in his naivety, he might end up falling for.



This. I tend to think he is naive, the media thing is capturing, in a cringeworthy way, his own development of ideas as time progresses. But it doesn't explain his closeness with dodgy characters and his apparent refusal to refute some of their more antisemitic, libertarian loonspuddery. And I don't think his attachment to specific campaigns, at local and national levels is useful, given his profile, and may be ultimately damaging to worthwhile campaigns. 

Media bubble profiles tend to smother and overtake the fundamental issue and make it all about the personality. I'm much more sympathetic towards his aims around drugs treatment and legislation, because it seems more rooted in his lived experience, but the same caveats apply.

Naive, or dangerous (or both) seems to sum it up. It doesn't matter that he bangs on about local, grassroots activism and have people agreeing with him if it becomes about the man, not the ball. And that's the shrivelled media reality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> To you, perhaps, but if he strike an interest in younger less experienced people, surly that's a good thing.



"Younger, less experienced people"? Could you be more patronising?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Fvck the hierarchy



It is spelt "fuck", you milquetoast.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Younger, less experienced people"? Could you be more patronising?


Ld222 likes a challenge


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It is spelt "fuck", you milquetoast.


surely "milktoast"


----------



## coley (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> he's learned he effectively got away with the fascist salute, with the vile phonecalls, with the repeated sexism. it's all documented even if his groupies like Cheesypoof refuse to see it as a pattern of behaviour.


Aye, we seem to be a forgiving lot as far as airheaded celebs go.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

coley said:


> Aye, we seem to be a forgiving lot as far as airheaded celebs go.


more's the fucking pity


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> It seems like you've invested in this idea of the dull, beige masses and the socialist-whateverists bringing change from the outside by your use of the 'mainstream.'



Our collective consciousness need only be raised by the likes of Russell Brand, for change to become reality.

Oddly enough, when our collective consciousness has been raised previously, through endeavours as temporally and ideologically diverse as Luddism, Chartism, Levelling, the advent of Communism and its offshoots etc, what usually happens is that we are suppressed - sometimes violently and sometimes subtly, but always suppressed.

But hey, the chap who wrote the Booky-Wook will change all that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Problem is, it's not just 'socialist' politics. It's all the bonkers lizard stuff that lurks below the surface. I quite like Brand as a person and comedian, I just think he is dangerously ill-equipped to protect himself against dodgy influences that, in his naivety, he might end up falling for.



Quite, and the causes he espouses are mostly entirely unprepared for the sort of fallout their patron could bring down on them, which is why I've made a similar point repeatedly.


----------



## coley (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Younger, less experienced people"? Could you be more patronising?


Surly young people ring a bell though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

double post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

coley said:


> Surly young people ring a bell though



I thought surliness was a definitive northern character trait.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Our collective consciousness need only be raised by the likes of Russell Brand, for change to become reality.
> 
> Oddly enough, when our collective consciousness has been raised previously, through endeavours as temporally and ideologically diverse as Luddism, Chartism, Levelling, the advent of Communism and its offshoots etc, what usually happens is that we are suppressed - sometimes violently and sometimes subtly, but always suppressed.
> 
> But hey, the chap who wrote the Booky-Wook will change all that.


russell brand will be laughing all the way to the banky-wanky


----------



## BigTom (Dec 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Out of interest what does rb say when the antisemitic stuff is pointed out to him?
> 
> Did he ever condemn that pickup artist he was posing with by the way?



I was right, he did:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...es-of-pickup-artist-julien-blanc-9870275.html



> Russell Brand says he would 'never, never, never endorse' 'derogatory' and 'insulting' techniques of pick-up artist Julien Blanc


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

coley said:


> Surly young people ring a bell though



I thought surliness was a definitive northern character trait.


----------



## coley (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought surliness was a definitive northern character trait.


Endemic amongst all the young,regardless


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> surely "milktoast"



Only if you're some sort of namby-pamby, airy-fairy ponce.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

coley said:


> Endemic amongst all the young,regardless


and quite a few of the auld


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only if you're some sort of namby-pamby, airy-fairy ponce.


and only milque- if you're some sort of pretentious pseud


----------



## coley (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> more's the fucking pity



Might as well hoy the picks in and let whatever celebrity shyteshow  that garners the most votes between now and May form the next government.
Even a coalition formed from the X factor and Strictly come dancing


----------



## fishfinger (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and only milque- if you're some sort of pretentious pseud


Poor Caspar


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

coley said:


> Might as well hoy the picks in and let whatever celebrity shyteshow  that garners the most votes between now and May form the next government.
> Even a coalition formed from the X factor and Strictly come dancing


i think you'll find it's shiteshow


----------



## FNG (Dec 13, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Where does he do that?



By over romanticising their exploits,the stuff butchers was on about riding around the desert on horseback taking damascus ect, also he's got form dressing up as Osama Bin Laden the day after 9/11, seems like ligging up another anti american Islamicist nutjob.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It is spelt "fuck", you milquetoast.



Why do you feel the need to get personal, have you issues?, a chara.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

FNG said:


> By over romanticising their exploits,the stuff butchers was on about riding around the desert on horseback taking damascus ect, also he's got form dressing up as Osama Bin Laden the day after 9/11, seems like ligging up another anti american Islamicist nutjob.


come come all that's in the past  he's focussed the world's attention on the irish water charges and brought socialism to the masses like no one since peter doherty


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Younger, less experienced people"? Could you be more patronising?



You do understand that, people have to learn.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> come come all that's in the past  he's focussed the world's attention on the irish water charges and brought socialism to the masses like no one since peter doherty



What would he prefer he was doing?

Sitting on the internet *taking* about revolution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> What would he prefer he was doing?
> 
> Sitting on the internet *taking* about revolution.


nice allusion to his history of addiction. bit low, don't you think?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> You do understand that, people have to learn.


when will you start d'you think?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Mentions of the god factor = zero.



That's incorrect of Revolution, in fact he says it straight as an arrow on page 179.

'Heroin is an opiate; opiates are painkillers. I was in spiritual pain. I have come to believe that the reason i was using drugs was to treat a spiritual malady.'

If that is not a direct statement on using drugs as a replacement for 'God' I dont know what is.

And he goes on to say 'Does it sound a bit phoney when i say that in my Grand Prix of priapic glee I was actually seeking salvation? Does that sound like something you might hear in a Southern Baptist church or a South London gospel gathering - or worse, a treatment centre for drug addiction?'

and he adds 'My research in this area has been quite thorough and i'd say my findings are quite conclusive.'

Russell Brand may as well be talking to, or rather correcting you himself, butchers.  And on page 35

'If you're looking for God, for salvation, for a connection, for sanctuary from the cuckoo self-incubating in you, and there's no map, no guide, no story, no folk memory of how we get there, sooner or later you'll pick up a bottle, a pipe or a brick.'

I do wonder whether butchers is deliberately bullshitting you all about reading Revolution. His factually incorrect comment about the God factor being 'zero' sounds like someone who definitely _hasnt_ read this book (Russell talks a hell of a lot about God and religion throughout the book so i would say the God factor is quite high).


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite, and the causes he espouses are mostly entirely unprepared for the sort of fallout their patron could bring down on them, which is why I've made a similar point repeatedly.



Can you provide examples?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2014)

I never said he didn't talk about God you muppet -  the book is chock full of cack about god -  but that he never talked about 'the god factor' as you claimed. At least I've prompted you to read the book now.

Transparent wriggle btw.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I never said he didn't talk about God you muppet -  the book is chock full of cack about god -  but that he never talked about 'the god factor'. At least I've prompted you to read the book now.
> 
> Transparent wriggle btw.


not quite. she's gone to eason's on o'connell st and looked in a copy.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I never said he didn't talk about God you muppet -  the book is chock full of cack about god -  but that he never talked about 'the god factor'. At least I've prompted you to read the book now.
> 
> Transparent wriggle btw.



shut up butchers, you've made enough of a tool of yourself.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 13, 2014)

This thread is really dumb....I'm leaving it now, i would rather engage with people who are informed and listen to each other than a bunch of daft cunts. Laterz.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> This thread is really dumb....I'm leaving it now, i would rather engage with people who are informed and listen to each other than a bunch of daft cunts. Laterz.....


this is after you've said you're not interested in his first 35 years.


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> That's incorrect of Revolution, in fact he says it straight as an arrow on page 179.
> 
> 'Heroin is an opiate; opiates are painkillers. I was in spiritual pain. I have come to believe that the reason i was using drugs was to treat a spiritual malady.'
> 
> ...



'Heroin is an opiate; opiates are painkillers. I was in spiritual pain. I have come to believe that the reason i was using drugs was to treat a spiritual malady.'

I regard whisky as the one true Holy Spirit, white wine as holy water,by this time of night they've usually worked their spiritual magic.
Just wondering which father, grandfather/husband even, I can call up to regale them of their daughters, granddaughters,partners peccadillos involving my illustrious self? 
Mind it has to be done on national radio to protect the privacy of those involved.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 14, 2014)

Mungy said:


> what i understand rb to be doing is trying to get people to engage in activism in their community, be involved in things going on around us. if people did that - those who didn't know that their actions could make a difference - i think that would be a good thing. what am i missing?



so a question to Brands supporters on this thread, what have you done that you wouldn't have done without Russell Brand, how has he inspired you to take action in your community in ways you werent before, which campaigns have you got involved with, meetings been to, actions done, protests organised because Brand inspired you?

because if he hasn't had this effect on his most ardent supporters and promoters then I dont hold out much hope for him having it on anyone else


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

smokedout said:


> so a question to Brands supporters on this thread, what have you done that you wouldn't have done without Russell Brand, how has he inspired you to take action in your community in ways you werent before, which campaigns have you got involved with, meetings been to, actions done, protests organised because Brand inspired you?
> 
> because if he hasn't had this effect on his most ardent supporters and promoters then I dont hold out much hope for him having it on anyone else


Has been said repeatedly, but I admire your attempt at succuincity, oh fuck it,where's the spell checker when you need it??


----------



## Mungy (Dec 14, 2014)

smokedout said:


> so a question to Brands supporters on this thread, what have you done that you wouldn't have done without Russell Brand, how has he inspired you to take action in your community in ways you werent before, which campaigns have you got involved with, meetings been to, actions done, protests organised because Brand inspired you?
> 
> because if he hasn't had this effect on his most ardent supporters and promoters then I dont hold out much hope for him having it on anyone else



i was already doing stuff. not big stuff, mostly helping individuals rather than groups of people - i live in a small village. there are wider things that i would get involved in were my personal circumstances different. that said, rb has given me a virtual kick up the bum and i decided to join the green party, i don't hold much hope for them taking many seats. i'm a traditional labour voter, but i just don't trust them to do right. i vote plaid here as second place is almost always tory and i would rather have plaid than tories. local councillor is liberal, i try not to hold it against him, as he is not actually a bad person.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

Green Party, great. Can't wait for Greenausterity


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

BRING OUT THE HUMMUS CANNON


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

I'm sure the won't do in X what they did in Brighton, Ireland and Germany...


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 14, 2014)

OMG, a week later the chimps are still at it.

This thread is a prime example of the tabloid mentality at work.  Proof being, the same snides are still gossiping about Russell Brand the celebrity whilst ignoring the call to action in another thread.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/action-evict-westbrook-not-new-era-this-saturday.329952/

You consider yourselves activists?

Activists my arse!

You're just wasting bandwidth.



Cheesypoof said:


> This thread is really dumb....I'm leaving it now, i would rather engage with people who are informed and listen to each other than a bunch of daft cunts. Laterz.....



I'm with you Cheesypoof.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 14, 2014)

What would we do without Russet Apples?


----------



## JimW (Dec 14, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> ....
> This thread is a prime example of the tabloid mentality at work.  Proof being, the same snides are still gossiping about Russell Brand the celebrity whilst ignoring the call to action in another thread.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/action-evict-westbrook-not-new-era-this-saturday.329952/
> ...


Prime example of you confusing posting on the Internet or not with activism again, more like.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 14, 2014)

Mungy said:


> rb has given me a virtual kick up the bum and i decided to join the green party,



that news doesnt make me feel we're much closer to a revolutionary situation


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

The chimps?


----------



## Mungy (Dec 14, 2014)

smokedout said:


> that news doesnt make me feel we're much closer to a revolutionary situation



in all fairness, my situation is hardly indicative of the uk as a whole, i live in rural northwest wales ffs. basing your conclusion on the voting choice of one man in rural wales is just plain ridiculous.


----------



## FNG (Dec 14, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> OMG, a week later the chimps are still at it.
> 
> This thread is a prime example of the tabloid mentality at work.  Proof being, the same snides are still gossiping about Russell Brand the celebrity whilst ignoring the call to action in another thread.
> 
> ...



 I'm still not buying the sun, but now i'm not buying it in solidarity with comerade russell

HTH


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> The chimps?



Tabloid mentality.


----------



## rekil (Dec 14, 2014)

Not all chimps.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 14, 2014)

When I first heard about his association with this easeman character i assumed he (easeman) was a kind of jazzz type character - uncritically absorbing all the banking conspiracy stuff and maybe unknowingly repeating antisemitic tropes. But he's not is he? He's a rabid antisemite whose website carries holocaust denial and everything. How the fuck did brand manage to associate himself with him - be _inspired by_ him - and not realise that stuff like this is maybe a bit iffy:



> Liverpool, my hometown, is a city of 465,700, Jews make up about 3000 of that number, yet three of the five MP’s (a whopping 60%) that govern the city are Jewish Zionist Marxists, they are;
> 
> Louise Ellman MP for Riverside.
> Lucianna Berger MP for Wavertree.
> ...





> The legislative efforts and campaigns to outlaw discussing the negative effects of immigration, and exposing the fraudulent Holocaust largely failed and despite massive pressure, Holocaust denial remains LEGAL in the UK.
> 
> This fact demolishes the de-motivational and intimidation efforts of Jewish media elements and infiltrators within talking circles and so called nationalist groups (example- Nick Griffin refusing to expose the Holocaust during Question Time, when even given permission to do so by Jack Straw) to intimidate informationally aware English and wider European folk in the UK from openly demolishing the malicious, seditious lies in numerous subjects ranging from distributing information pertaining to the negative effects of mass-non-European immigration (this intimidation effort is so obvious as even political parties are allowed to do this) to the subject of the non-existent Holocaust (as it is very easy to do and demonstrates so much, which is precisely why its enforcement, as with the Jewish-Marixst intellectual blockade on obvious racial realities relies on an atmosphere of illogical fear, enforced more often than not by Jewish infiltrators within racially aware circles) and its associated or by-implication subjects, such as the Jewish authored and executed Holodomor and the control of the media, and education systems.



from here: http://www dot thepeoplevsthebanks dot co dot uk/jew-immigration/



Diana9 said:


> OMG, a week later the chimps are still at it.
> 
> This thread is a prime example of the tabloid mentality at work.  Proof being, the same snides are still gossiping about Russell Brand the celebrity whilst ignoring the call to action in another thread.
> 
> ...



Rather than accusing others of inactivity, based solely on evidence you've gleaned by gazing at your own ringpiece, why don't you respond to smokedout 's post and explain what you've been inspired to do after hearing Brand talkywalking?

Only from where I'm standing it appears that you consider watching brand talkywalking on his videowideos on trewsywews and talking about him on the internet to be constructive political activity, which in turn allows you to self-righteously sneer at people about whom you know nothing - many of whom have been doing the kind of hard, boring and mostly unrewarding slog that is necessary to build campaigns from the bottom up and is the only way to build any kind of sustainable movement.

You really do sound like a religious zealot.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> OMG, a week later the chimps are still at it.
> 
> This thread is a prime example of the tabloid mentality at work.  Proof being, the same snides are still gossiping about Russell Brand the celebrity whilst ignoring the call to action in another thread.
> 
> ...


Fantastic post, aside from proving yet again my point about brand now being a tool for injecting your sort of poison, who do you think wrote that call out?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> When I first heard about his association with this easeman character i assumed he (easeman) was a kind of jazzz type character - uncritically absorbing all the banking conspiracy stuff and maybe unknowingly repeating antisemitic tropes. But he's not is he? He's a rabid antisemite whose website carries holocaust denial and everything. How the fuck did brand manage to associate himself with him - be _inspired by_ him - and not realise that stuff like this is maybe a bit iffy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What exactly is Brand association with this 'Easeman'?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> What exactly is Brand association with this 'Easeman'?


Why don't you know about it? Why haven't you bothered finding out since he's been mentioned on this very thread numerous times in the period you've been posting on it. What else have you not been bothered to check whilst attacking others? Do you see the point I'm making here?


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> who do you think wrote that call out?


I didn't spot that. fucking brilliant.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why don't you know about it? Why haven't you bothered finding out since he's been mentioned on this very thread numerous times in the period you've been posting on it. What else have you not been bothered to check whilst attacking others? Do you see the point I'm making here?




Sorry, I haven't time to trawl through 66 pages of a petty sniping and hyperbole.

If your going character assassinate someone by association, at least provide a few links, to that association.

Attacking others?!?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

killer b said:


> I didn't spot that. fucking brilliant.


There's loads more that flow from just that one thing as well - 25+ year worth of my personal activity and networks that i can connect to that single action - and i know others on this thread can too. But that's a silly game to play and would be playing to that poison-injecting agenda/dynamic.


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> If your going character assassinate someone by association, at least provide a few links, to that association.


Brand & Easeman's association is common knowledge - it was all over the national press and has been discussed here and elsewhere countless times. I think it's ok to write about a commonly known associate of Brand without providing proof of the association.

Did you know he used to go out with Katy Perry??


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Sorry, I haven't time to trawl through 66 pages of a petty sniping and hyperbole.
> 
> If your going character assassinate someone by association, at least provide a few links, to that association.
> 
> Attacking others?!?



He offers thanks to him in his book - iirc also calls him an inspiration. He was going to give him a platform at some speaking thing he was doing too. If you're too lazy to look into your hero's actions I'm not going to do it for you - find your own links. Google is your friend.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Here he is on Brands video thing the trews only two months ago.


Ld222 said:


> Sorry, I haven't time to trawl through 66 pages of a petty sniping and hyperbole.
> 
> If your going character assassinate someone by association, at least provide a few links, to that association.
> 
> Attacking others?!?


So you _didn't _see the point i was making then. Ok, i'll make it plain - you are following a man that you appear to know nothing about and worse demanding that others do too and then attacking those who don't. This is poison. Pure poison.

Incidentally, this is exactly how the far right try like Easeman try and weasel their way into nice things and people - say  a few nice things, keep the nasty stuff quiet and hope no one asks any questions, then when questions _are _asked later on, the first intake - that's you/diane/kterk/cheesey - go in to bat for them.


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Sorry, I haven't time to trawl through 66 pages of a petty sniping and hyperbole.
> 
> If your going character assassinate someone by association, at least provide a few links, to that association.
> 
> Attacking others?!?



You really think this is about Brand's character?

He could be a veritable saint and the same basic critique would apply.

It's not about him, it's about his role.

That he's accused of being a sleaze who hangs round with anti-Semites just accelerates matters.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Never ceases to amaze me how swiftly _ask questions _turns into _don't ask questions!_


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here he is on Brands video thing the trews only two months ago.
> 
> So you _didn't _see the point i was making then. Ok, i'll make it plain* - you are following a man that you appear to no nothing about and worse demanding that others do too and then attacking those who don't*. This is poison in. Pure poison.
> 
> Incidentally, this is exactly how the far right try like Easeman try and weasel their way into nice things and people - say  a few nice things, keep the nasty stuff quiet and hope no one asks any questions, then when questions _are _asked later on, the first intake - that's you/diane/kterk/cheesey - go in to bat for them.



What in gawds name are you talking about.

Where have I said anything like that?. 

All I'm saying is you don't need a phd in politics to comment or highlight social issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> What in gawds name are you talking about.
> 
> Where have I said anything like that?.
> 
> All I'm saying is you don't need a phd in politics to comment or highlight social issues.


Yes you do - why have you ignored all the posts on this thread which establish that very fact?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> He offers thanks to him in his book - iirc also calls him an inspiration. He was going to give him a platform at some speaking thing he was doing too. If you're too lazy to look into your hero's actions I'm not going to do it for you - find your own links. Google is your friend.



Your making it up as you go along, where have I, even said I liked Brand?

He has as much right to highlight social issues as anyone else.

What I don't like is elitist cliques that think they have all power, knowledge and superiority over everyone else.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you do - why have you ignored all the posts on this thread which establish that very fact?



Yes I do, what? What are you talking about?

What I don't like is this clearly orchestrated campaign against him.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Yes I do, what? What are you talking about?
> 
> What I don't like is this clearly orchestrated campaign against him.


Need a phd to talk about politics. As many people have clearly demonstrated through their arguments on this thread.


----------



## FNG (Dec 14, 2014)

Its not guilt by association  its guilt by endorsement ffs by name checking an open anti Semite he is by nature of his celebrity status both raising the profile and giving a veneer of respectability to her mans opinions


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Need a phd to talk about politics. As many people have clearly demonstrated through their arguments on this thread.



So politics are exclusive to those with a 3rd level education. I can see why you don't like Brand.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> So politics are exclusive to those with a 3rd level education. I can see why you don't like Brand.


Yes, or to multi-millionaire celebs. There is a get out though - you can talk about politics without a phd as long as you limit your discussion to agreeing with and applauding the multi-millionaire celeb.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

Mungy said:


> in all fairness, my situation is hardly indicative of the uk as a whole, i live in rural northwest wales ffs. basing your conclusion on the voting choice of one man in rural wales is just plain ridiculous.


i don't suppose nick griffin will vote green. ukip maybe. or hw might not bother.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> So politics are exclusive to those with a 3rd level education. I can see why you don't like Brand.


a phd is above '3rd level'


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't suppose nick griffin will vote green.



Indeed. Griffin is better than that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> What in gawds name are you talking about.
> 
> Where have I said anything like that?.
> 
> All I'm saying is you don't need a phd in politics to comment or highlight social issues.


but you do need some nous and yours appears lacking.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, or to multi-millionaire celebs. There is a get out though - you can talk about politics without a phd as long as you limit your discussion to agreeing with and applauding the multi-millionaire celeb.




As long as he highlighting issues such as the plight of Focus E15 mothers.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> a phd is above '3rd level'



You don't miss a trick, you. Bravo.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> As long as he highlighting issues such as the plight of Focus E15 mothers.



Focus E15 were already doing great work and had media exposure before Brand came along.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> As long as he highlighting issues such as the plight of Focus E15 mothers.


Are you saying that you agree with my post that you're replying to?


----------



## Mungy (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't suppose nick griffin will vote green. ukip maybe. or hw might not bother.


i very much doubt i will have a green candidate to vote for. plaid cymru always get in here with tories second. voting labour would be a wasted vote as probably would voting green. i can't speak for what nick griffin will do. i think he lives in a different bit of wales than me.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Focus E15 were already doing great work and had media exposure before Brand came along.



I take it, you don't live 400 miles from London.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Mungy said:


> i very much doubt i will have a green candidate to vote for. plaid cymru always get in here with tories second. voting labour would be a wasted vote as probably would voting green. i can't speak for what nick griffin will do. i think he lives in a different bit of wales than me.


Have i this right then, brand has inspired you to do the exact thing he says people shouldn't do?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you saying that you agree with my post that you're replying to?



Does it matter, you'll make up your own version of what I'm saying, anyhow.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Does it matter, you'll make up your own version of what I'm saying, anyhow.


Seriously - this from somone who has spent the morning arguing that people here are saying that we think only people with a phd should talk about politics? You're a religious man, brother remove that beam.


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> As long as he highlighting issues such as the plight of Focus E15 mothers.


He was being interviewed at that particular protest and went off it when asked "what rent did he pay" 
Why was that do you think?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously - this from somone who has spent the morning arguing that people here are saying that we think only people with a phd should talk about politics? You're a religious man, brother remove that beam.



...and so it turns


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

coley said:


> He was being interviewed at that particular protest and went off it when asked "what rent did he pay"
> Why was that do you think?



Do you expect me to speak on his behalf.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Do you expect me to speak on his behalf.


Why not you seem happy for him to speak on behalf of others?


----------



## Mungy (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have i this right then, brand has inspired you to do the exact thing he says people shouldn't do?


short answer. yes 

long answer, yes and no  please read the long answer 

What I want is.... my understanding of the banking system is pathetically inadequate to form a coherent opinion on it .... what i want is the tax loopholes to be closed, that those who trade here pay their taxes without any wriggle room. that the nhs be kept out of private hands, that water, gas, electricity return to state ownership, and the telephone system, so those profits go back into the system instead of in some rich fuckers bank account. i want working conditions improved for all workers, better rates of pay, shorter hours. i want the welfare of the workers to be more important than the profits they make from their labour. i want the safety net of state benefits catch everyone who falls. i think a citizens wage may be the way forward, but don't understand enough to make it more than a soundbite. i want us to invest in renewable energy, base an industry around it, that will in some way at the very least make us world leaders. i realise this would have been better bullet pointed, but there you go....

there is more, but a wall of text ain't gonna make much difference.

labour, the party i want to vote for, will not deliver any of the above. greens claim they will most of that. some of that list has come from following ideas that rb has repeated, things that i held to be true before listening to the trews.

the system we have is broke, it needs fixing or replacing. both of these things are beyond me, one man in rural northwest wales. i will stand behind anyone who would deliver it. i can't imagine an anti semite, racist, fascist delivering a majority of those ideals of mine, so it will be a while yet before i have the moral dilemma of voting ukip, bnp, etc, because they have lurched to the left.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Why not you seem happy for him to speak on behalf of others?



Such as.....?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

I was about to share that laurence easeman thing on fb but not sure it's worth the hassle I'd get over it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Your making it up as you go along, where have I, even said I liked Brand?
> 
> He has as much right to highlight social issues as anyone else.
> 
> What I don't like is elitist cliques that think they have all power, knowledge and superiority over everyone else.



Who was the long ago banned poster that used to always put commas in the weirdest of places?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> You don't miss a trick, you. Bravo.


don't bring anna trick into this


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously - this from somone who has spent the morning arguing that people here are saying that we think only people with a phd should talk about politics? You're a religious man, brother remove that beam.


thus mote it be


----------



## cesare (Dec 14, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Who was the long ago banned poster that used to always put commas in the weirdest of places?



Lusty , probably ?//


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

Just shared it. I know I'll get a bit of flack but fuck it


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Just shared it. I know I'll get a bit of flack but fuck it


a bit of caroline flack?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

https://network23.org/obseceneturtle/2014/09/21/laurence-easeman-the-fascist-behind-people-vs-banks/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Why do you feel the need to get personal...



Because you chat poorly-worded cod-Marxism, dearie.  



> ...have you issues?, a chara.



Issues with regard to you? No. Issues with regard to slavish celeb worship on the basis that they *might* bring a few people to politics? Plenty - it isn't worth the candle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> You do understand that, people have to learn.



And you or Russell will teach them?
Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Just shared it. I know I'll get a bit of flack but fuck it


Not from me


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> What would he prefer he was doing?
> 
> Sitting on the internet *taking* about revolution.



If he wants revolution, then he should be putting actual ideas about how to achieve a revolution "out there" for the public to peruse. He isn't, he's just telling people that he reckons there should be a revolution. A spotty sixth-form sociology student can do *that*. It achieves nothing, and is exactly what he's doing. Sitting on the internet, talking about revolution, mouthing decades-old pieties about anti-capitalism and buying into the sort of pernicious economic nonsense that people like Icke retail.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Not from me



I know but my Facebook feed has been full admiring posts about saint russell the last few days.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Can you provide examples?



Do you have a problem with knowing what the word "could" means?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

J Ed said:


> BRING OUT THE HUMMUS CANNON



Austerity hummus, though, made from gram flour, lard, peanut butter and rancid garlic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What would we do without Russet Apples?



Ploughman's lunches would be a lot less pleasurable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> OMG, a week later the chimps are still at it.
> 
> This thread is a prime example of the tabloid mentality at work.  Proof being, the same snides are still gossiping about Russell Brand the celebrity whilst ignoring the call to action in another thread.
> 
> ...



What's great about your post (and very little is) is that it says so much more about you than about anything else.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

lol @ ignoring the call to action to not buy The Sun

I will never stop buying the Sun because I love it so much, like everyone else here


----------



## cesare (Dec 14, 2014)

J Ed said:


> lol @ ignoring the call to action to not buy The Sun
> 
> I will never stop buying the Sun because I love it so much, like everyone else here




Our favourite rag


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

JimW said:


> Prime example of you confusing posting on the Internet or not with activism again, more like.



Well said, James. I've been doing activism since the late 1970s (and IIRC, you've been doing it a bit longer, but if you haven't, sorry for calling you old!), everything from physical direct action against local racists to door-knocking to community work (*not* for money _a la_ a local authority "community worker", just helping out others in the community) to signing petitions or writing to my councillors or my MP, and yes, to posting on the internet, because activism can be about disseminating information electronically, too.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 14, 2014)

Maybe the sort of people who buy The Sun are the same as those who buy Russell Brand DVDs.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> https://network23.org/obseceneturtle/2014/09/21/laurence-easeman-the-fascist-behind-people-vs-banks/



Easeman's a grade A fuckwit. 

http://revolution-news.com/laurence-easeman-russell-brands-pal-nazi-sympathiser-bailiff/

Is there any indication of how much of this information was available to Brand?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> When I first heard about his association with this easeman character i assumed he (easeman) was a kind of jazzz type character - uncritically absorbing all the banking conspiracy stuff and maybe unknowingly repeating antisemitic tropes. But he's not is he? He's a rabid antisemite whose website carries holocaust denial and everything. How the fuck did brand manage to associate himself with him - be _inspired by_ him - and not realise that stuff like this is maybe a bit iffy:



Out of the three "Jewish Zionist Marxists" he mentions, none of them are Marxists, only one of them is an "observant" Jew (i.e. she worships regularly), and although all three are members of "Labour Friends of Israel", only one of them has a public record of pro-Zionism of the "I support them right or wrong" kind, something which she's been called up on since her days in the NUS, not least by myself and frogwoman of this parish.

With that kind of "scholarship", he's obviously as credulous or as willfully blind as jazzz ever was.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Easeman's a grade A fuckwit.
> 
> http://revolution-news.com/laurence-easeman-russell-brands-pal-nazi-sympathiser-bailiff/
> 
> Is there any indication of how much of this information was available to Brand?



All of it. And he was the one who was working on the book with brand, appearing on trews with him, brand setting up big panel discussions with him  - brand had _more_ info than us thickos.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

As he has had him on his show and described him as an inspiration I am guessing quite a lot? 


Ld222 said:


> Easeman's a grade A fuckwit.
> 
> http://revolution-news.com/laurence-easeman-russell-brands-pal-nazi-sympathiser-bailiff/
> 
> Is there any indication of how much of this information was available to Brand?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you have a problem with knowing what the word "could" means?



The vitriol in which you post does not help you in making your point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Sorry, I haven't time to trawl through 66 pages of a petty sniping and hyperbole.
> 
> If your going character assassinate someone by association, at least provide a few links, to that association.
> 
> Attacking others?!?



If you bothered to trawl through the pages, you'd have found links.
Instead, like many infants, you want to be spoonfed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> The vitriol in which you post does not help you in making your point.



Any "vitriol" is in your imagination. Generally, when one attributes emotion to an interlocutor, it's a sign of shoddy argument on the attributor's part.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

chilango said:


> You really think this is about Brand's character?
> 
> He could be a veritable saint and the same basic critique would apply.
> 
> *It's not about him, it's about his role.*



However many times that point is made, it's fairly obvious that some posters will ignore it.
They have to, because their arguments have no substance unless they pretend/assume that any critique of Brand's role is actually a critique of his character.



> That he's accused of being a sleaze who hangs round with anti-Semites just accelerates matters.



Let's set aside Easeman and Icke (both of whom he has connections with) for the moment, and concentrate entirely on how Brand's media personality (because what "we" see of him is a front, just like everyones public personality is a front) could be (and has been) misused by the media in order to denigrate him and the causes he espouses. What is the net benefit to those causes?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Focus E15 were already doing great work and had media exposure before Brand came along.



Yep, as has been mentioned many times on the parts of this thread that Ld222 has not bothered to read, what with it being so irksome to actually inform yourself before diving into an argument.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> I take it, you don't live 400 miles from London.



Although I should acknowledge my connections with that part of London, in a newspaper, about 250 miles away!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

J Ed said:


> lol @ ignoring the call to action to not buy The Sun
> 
> I will never stop buying the Sun because I love it so much, like everyone else here



I tried to recall the last time I bought _The Sun_, and I vaguely remember it being around the time I moved from Clapham Park (in Lambeth borough) to Balham (in Wandsworth borough), so some time in 1988, and I bought it for a flatmate (used to buy _The Daily Mirror, The Sun_ and _The Daily Express_ every week-day), as I stopped buying (or reading) it after the "Gotcha!" headline in '82.  There's literally hundreds of thousands who dropped it after Hillsborough (look at the circulation figures for the time), who've never taken it up again. 
A call to action in 2014 to not buy _The Sun_ kind of misses the point, Mr. Brand. Anyone remotely politically-aware had already blanked the fucker!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Just to clarify, the call to action was this thread - look who wrote the call out. It's one of the people on here she is berating.


----------



## keybored (Dec 14, 2014)

Diane should have lurked more.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Any "vitriol" is in your imagination. Generally, when one attributes emotion to an interlocutor, it's a sign of shoddy argument on the attributor's part.



So it's my fault that you feel the need to be condescending.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

Has Brand had any contact with easeman since he was told he was an antisemite? Someone on fb is saying he hasn't. It's a genuine question by the way


----------



## JimW (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well said, James. I've been doing activism since the late 1970s (and IIRC, you've been doing it a bit longer, but if you haven't, sorry for calling you old!), everything from physical direct action against local racists to door-knocking to community work (*not* for money _a la_ a local authority "community worker", just helping out others in the community) to signing petitions or writing to my councillors or my MP, and yes, to posting on the internet, because activism can be about disseminating information electronically, too.


Not far off, since the early/mid-eighties. It's the scraggy beard makes me look haggard and past it, honest.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> As he has had him on his show and described him as an inspiration I am guessing quite a lot?



How do we know Easeman wasn't stringing him along?


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Has Brand had any contact with easeman since he was told he was an antisemite? Someone on fb is saying he hasn't. It's a genuine question by the way


how would anyone know?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> How do we know Easeman wasn't stringing him along?


What does that mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Has Brand had any contact with easeman since he was told he was an antisemite? Someone on fb is saying he hasn't. It's a genuine question by the way


We don't know when/if anything about anything beyond brand thought that he is great and that late october Brand still thought he was great.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What does *that* mean?




that

ðat,ðət/
_pronoun_
pronoun: *that*; pronoun: *those*

*1*.
used to identify a specific person or thing observed or heard by the speaker.
"that's his wife over there"
referring to the more distant of two things near to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by ‘this’).
"this is stronger than that"

*2*.
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"that's a good idea"
*3*.
used in singling out someone or something and ascribing a distinctive feature to them.
"it is part of human nature to be attracted to *that which* is aesthetically pleasing"
*4*.
BRITISHinformal
expressing strong agreement with a description just given.
"‘He's a fussy man.’ ‘He is that.’"
*5*.
used to introduce a defining clause, especially one essential to identification:
instead of ‘which’, ‘who’, or ‘whom’
"the woman that owns the place"
instead of ‘when’ after an expression of time.
"the year that Anna was born"

_determiner_
determiner: *that*; determiner: *those*

*1*.
used to identify a specific person or thing observed or heard by the speaker.
"look at that chap there"
referring to the more distant of two things near to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by ‘this’).

*2*.
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"he lived in Mysore at that time"
*3*.
used in singling out someone or something and ascribing a distinctive feature to them.
"I have always envied those people who make their own bread"
*4*.
referring to a specific person or thing assumed as understood or familiar to the person being addressed.
"where is that son of yours?"
_adverb_
adverb: *that*

*1*.
to such a degree; so.
"I wouldn't go that far"
used with a gesture to indicate size.
"it was that big, perhaps even bigger"
informal
very.
"I couldn't get out of the house fast enough, I was that embarrassed!"

_conjunction_
conjunction: *that*

*1*.
introducing a subordinate clause expressing a statement or hypothesis.
"she said that she was satisfied"
expressing a reason or cause.
"he seemed pleased that I wanted to continue"
expressing a result.
"she was *so* tired *that* she couldn't think"
expressing a purpose, hope, or intention.
"we pray that the coming year may be a year of peace"

*2*.
literary
expressing a wish or regret.
"oh that he could be restored to health"
Origin

Old English _thæt_, nominative and accusative singular neuter of _se_ ‘the’, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch _dat_ and German _das_ .


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

May i just i take this opp to thank you for your posts on this thread Ld222.

Or should i say Ld-2015.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you sound like a poundland terry eagleton


Oi - that's me


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> So it's my fault that you feel the need to be condescending.



The only thing that's your fault is your need to project your assumptions.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He does sometimes come across like he's delighting in his own erudition and vocabulary



He isn't erudite at all, except by the standards of c-list celebs.   He is an attention-hungry narcissist with a couple of GCSEs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> that
> 
> ðat,ðət/
> _pronoun_
> ...



Speaking of condescension...

Again with the mote and beam.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He isn't erudite at all, except by the standards of c-list celebs.   He is an attention-hungry narcissist with a couple of GCSEs.


Marvelous stuff-  labour snobbery sunday again.

That's actually a really revealing and really nasty nasty post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> May i just i take this opp to thank you for your posts on this thread Ld222.
> 
> Or should i say Ld-2015.



Liberal democrat 2015? Could it be...?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He isn't erudite at all, except by the standards of c-list celebs.   He is an attention-hungry narcissist with a couple of GCSEs.



Tá fáilte romhat.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Liberal democrat 2015? Could it be...?


I wish, nah.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Marvelous stuff-  labour snobbery sunday again.


How is that snobbery?  I don't make any generalisations just a specific comment about what passes for erudition amongst celebrities


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Speaking of condescension...
> 
> Again with the mote and beam.



I merely answered, but continue with your insults.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He isn't erudite at all, except by the standards of c-list celebs.   He is an attention-hungry narcissist with a couple of GCSEs.



Depends what you mean by erudition, surely?
As for my original comment, it was that he delights in *his own* erudition. That doesn't give a measure of his erudition (as you appear to wish to), it points out that by his own standards he's erudite.
I'm sure that *you* believe, by your own standards, that *you* are erudite too!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> How is that snobbery?  I don't make any generalisations just a specific comment about what passes for erudition amongst celebrities


And then a swipe against peiople with only a few gsces and their capability to be erudite. As i said before, you don't even know that you're doing it now. That was a disgusting nasty and revealing post.

It also leads me to ask how come so many people bat you around these boards for fun?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> that
> 
> ðat,ðət/
> _pronoun_
> ...



And that's that!


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> May i just i take this opp to thank you for your posts on this thread Ld222.
> 
> Or should i say Ld-2015.



Tá fáilte romhat.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> And that's that!



sin é


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Erudition is indeed relative. 


butchersapron said:


> And then a swipe against peiople with only a few gsces and their capability to be erudite. As i said before, you don't even know that you're doing it now. That was a disgusting nasty and revealing post.


It was no such thing.  It was a critique of what superficial standards of erudition would allow this clown to count as a fucking master of learning.   I know some exceptionally intelligent people with little in the way of formal education.  They'd make Brand look like a village idiot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Tá fáilte romhat.



Wwy nwd'n'. M'r 'yryş.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> I merely answered, but continue with your insults.



What insult?
The only insult is to me, that you continue, with no evidence, to claim that I'm insulting you.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He isn't erudite at all, except by the standards of c-list celebs.   He is an attention-hungry narcissist with a couple of GCSEs.



People like you prove the Daily Mail right.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wwy nwd'n'. M'r 'yryş.



What's that mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Erudition is indeed relative.
> 
> It was no such thing.  It was a critique of what superficial standards of learning would allow this clown to count as a fucking master of learning.  I know some exceptionally intelligent people with little in the way of formal education.  They'd make Brand look like a village idiot.


And this is what we call _the backtrack_  - the bit when, what have become his, by now, everyday social assumptions are highlighted to him - the bit where it appears that they were made from purely the most perfect intentions and in fact were designed to show the opposite of what they actually said/portrayed/implied.

You don't even know you're doing it anymore.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What insult?
> The only insult is to me, that you continue, with no evidence, to claim that I'm insulting you.



Maybe you don't even realise your doing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Erudition is indeed relative.
> 
> It was no such thing.  It was a critique of what superficial standards of erudition would allow this clown to count as a fucking master of learning.   I know some exceptionally intelligent people with little in the way of formal education.  They'd make Brand look like a village idiot.


No one said he was a master of _learning _- you turned it into an educational qualifications thing. That stinks. That's about as rotten as you can get.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And this is what we call _the backtrack_  - the bit when, what have become his, by now, everyday social assumptions are highlighted to him - the bit where it appears that they were made from purely the most perfect intentions and in fact were designed to show the opposite of what they actually said/portrayed/implied.
> 
> You don't even know you're doing it anymore.


On the contrary, it is where I have to point about the inaccuracy of your lazy assumptions about what people like me must mean.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> On the contrary, it is where I have to point about the inaccuracy of your lazy assumptions about what people like me must mean.


_People like you, the little unlearned people_. Oh you're making what you mean very very clear. Very clear.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> People like you prove the Daily Mail right.


He runs a paper with the same aims as your one had. Would it surprise you to learn it's full of/ran by pretty much every middle class cliche going?


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Do you expect me to speak on his behalf.


No, I expect you to think on your behalf, now why should he get angry when asked what level of rent does he pay?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> What's that mean?


that

ðat,ðət/
_pronoun_
pronoun: *that*; pronoun: *those*

*1*.
used to identify a specific person or thing observed or heard by the speaker.
"that's his wife over there"
referring to the more distant of two things near to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by ‘this’).
"this is stronger than that"

*2*.
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"that's a good idea"
*3*.
used in singling out someone or something and ascribing a distinctive feature to them.
"it is part of human nature to be attracted to *that which* is aesthetically pleasing"
*4*.
BRITISHinformal
expressing strong agreement with a description just given.
"‘He's a fussy man.’ ‘He is that.’"
*5*.
used to introduce a defining clause, especially one essential to identification:
instead of ‘which’, ‘who’, or ‘whom’
"the woman that owns the place"
instead of ‘when’ after an expression of time.
"the year that Anna was born"

_determiner_
determiner: *that*; determiner: *those*

*1*.
used to identify a specific person or thing observed or heard by the speaker.
"look at that chap there"
referring to the more distant of two things near to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by ‘this’).

*2*.
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"he lived in Mysore at that time"
*3*.
used in singling out someone or something and ascribing a distinctive feature to them.
"I have always envied those people who make their own bread"
*4*.
referring to a specific person or thing assumed as understood or familiar to the person being addressed.
"where is that son of yours?"
_adverb_
adverb: *that*

*1*.
to such a degree; so.
"I wouldn't go that far"
used with a gesture to indicate size.
"it was that big, perhaps even bigger"
informal
very.
"I couldn't get out of the house fast enough, I was that embarrassed!"

_conjunction_
conjunction: *that*

*1*.
introducing a subordinate clause expressing a statement or hypothesis.
"she said that she was satisfied"
expressing a reason or cause.
"he seemed pleased that I wanted to continue"
expressing a result.
"she was *so* tired *that* she couldn't think"
expressing a purpose, hope, or intention.
"we pray that the coming year may be a year of peace"

*2*.
literary
expressing a wish or regret.
"oh that he could be restored to health"
Origin





Old English _thæt_, nominative and accusative singular neuter of _se_ ‘the’, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch _dat_ and German _das_ .


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Exactly how many gcses do you suggest is acceptable articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No one said he was a master of _learning _- you turned it into an educational qualifications thing. That stinks. That's about as rotten as you can get.


It was a light hearted paraphrase from Pauline Calf: "a couple of GCSEs and she thinks she's Anne Diamond"... you just leapt on it to 'confirm' your frankly bizarre set of assumptions about what I must think


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

It's hilarious to see articul8 closely guard _intelligence _to his chest - that's not for people outside of the bubble.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wwy nwd'n'. M'r 'yryş.



Are you mocking the Irish language?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> What's that mean?



It means "how boring, more Irish".


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _People like you, the little unlearned people_. Oh you're making what you mean very very clear. Very clear.


I didn't say anything about " people like you". I referred to your (ie you personally) lazy and incorrect assumptions about people like me (you insist on twisting everything I say into proof of your fantasy construction.)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It was a light hearted paraphrase from Pauline Calf: "a couple of GCSEs and she thinks she's Anne Diamond"... you just leapt on it to 'confirm' your frankly bizarre set of assumptions about what I must think


Ask yourself why anyone would think that you are the snobby person i suggest, why your subsequent defences didn't re-inforce such a reading and why you didn't use the quote? What you've done is what the people who thought Alf garnett was real and so applauded him did.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Are you mocking the Irish language?



It's Yiddish.
The only person mocking the Irish language is you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say anything about " people like you". I referred to your (ie you personally) lazy and incorrect assumptions about people like me (you insist on twisting everything I say into proof of your fantasy construction.)


Marvelous - criticising you = proof of the incorrectness of the criticisms. How did you get like this?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's hilarious to see articul8 closely guard _intelligence _to his chest - that's not for people outside of the bubble.


I've just said very clearly the opposite.  You really can't see beyond your own narrow prejudice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Maybe you don't even realise your doing it.



And maybe you're a delicate flower with an eggshell personality, who takes any tone that isn't subservience and/or agreement to be insult.

See? Both of us can make bullshit speculations!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It was a light hearted paraphrase from Pauline Calf: "a couple of GCSEs and she thinks she's Anne Diamond"... you just leapt on it to 'confirm' your frankly bizarre set of assumptions about what I must think


A line written by oxbridge types btw.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It means "how boring, more Irish".



Have you a problem with the Irish language?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> On the contrary, it is where I have to point about the inaccuracy of your lazy assumptions about what people like me must mean.



Really?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I've just said very clearly the opposite.  You really can't see beyond your own narrow prejudice


The people with intelligence but no education you talk about are now in your bubble - your bubble defines intelligence. Brand isn't in your bubble therefore he is neither intelligent nor erudite. You can no longer see society.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Have you a problem with the Irish language?



No.
Plain enough for you?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No.
> Plain enough for you?



but your calling it boring


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And this is what we call _the backtrack_  - the bit when, what have become his, by now, everyday social assumptions are highlighted to him - the bit where it appears that they were made from purely the most perfect intentions and in fact were designed to show the opposite of what they actually said/portrayed/implied.
> 
> You don't even know you're doing it anymore.



You mean like the little bit of sexism he coughed up last week?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The people with intelligence but no education are now in your bubble - your bubble defines intelligence. Brand isn't in your bubble therefore he is neither intelligant nor erudite. You can no longer see.


What the fuck? If anyone is in a bubble it's Brand - the millionaire celeb!


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And maybe you're a delicate flower with an eggshell personality, who takes any tone that isn't subservience and/or agreement to be insult.
> 
> See? Both of us can make bullshit speculations!




Perhaps you are just a bully.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> but your calling it boring


It would make no difference if he called it racy exciting the greatest thing since fucking bucks fizz. Jesus christ.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> but your calling it boring



It's you're and he isn't.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> It's you're and he isn't.



Thanks for that


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What the fuck? If anyone is in a bubble it's Brand - the millionaire celeb!


Of course he's in a bubble - you missed the point, which was that you responded as if intelligence and erudition are things that only you and your own bubble can accredit and that _having only a few gsces_ whilst not being in your bubble means nah not in the club.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> but your calling it boring



No. My remark was to the effect that I found* your* use of bits of Irish boring.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly how many gcses do you suggest is acceptable articul8?



How acceptable is zero GCSEs?


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It would make no difference if he called it racy exciting the greatest thing since fucking bucks fizz. Jesus christ.



Calm down. 

A little bit of respect go's a long way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's hilarious to see articul8 closely guard _intelligence _to his chest - that's not for people outside of the bubble.



Frankly, on the performance of many inside the bubble, it's not for them either!


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Of course he's in a bubble - you missed the point, which was that you responded as if intelligence and erudition are things that only you and your own bubble can accredit and that _having only a few gsces_ whilst not being in your bubble means nah not in the club.


People can be intelligent and erudite without formal qualifications, as I've already stated quite clearly if you could read without the prejudice.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Calm down.
> 
> A little bit of respect go's a long way.


Don't start throwing irish onto an english language board then turn the inevitable responses into an attack on the fucking irish. That's what disrespectful is. What bis the point of you being on this thread? What have you brought to it?


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> A little bit of respect go's a long way.



Indeed it does. So why post comments in a language that many on here are unlikely to understand? Huh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The people with intelligence but no education you talk about are now in your bubble - your bubble defines intelligence. Brand isn't in your bubble therefore he is neither intelligent nor erudite. You can no longer see society.



Pfft. Everyone knows there's no such thing as "society" in the neolibtastic Labour Party articul8 supports!


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> How acceptable is zero GCSEs?


Education is very important but formal qualifications aren't the sole measure of intelligence


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> People can be intelligent and erudite without formal qualifications, as I've already stated quite clearly if you could read without the prejudice.


Do you really then think your _handful of gcses_ jibe was helpful worthwhile or made any sort of sense?

And your explanation of why you did simply doesn't hold up either. You clearly linked erudition to academic achievement then in a following post to intelligence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Perhaps you are just a bully.



Perhaps you have nothing to say that's worth saying, and it upsets you that people see this. On the evidence of this thread, that would be a reasonable conclusion.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't start throwing irish onto an english language board then turn the inevitable responses into an attack on the fucking irish. That's what disrespectful is. What bis the point of you being on this thread? What have you brought to it?



How is using a wee bit of Irish disrespectful?.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> How is using a wee bit of Irish disrespectful?.


I repeat, you've been a real boon to this thread, to this forum, since you've come back. Thanks for your input.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Thanks for that



You're welcome, now fuck off.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps you have nothing to say that's worth saying, and it upsets you that people see this. On the evidence of this thread, that would be a reasonable conclusion.



That's what you would say looking down from that pedestal that you have placed yourself on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Perhaps you are just a bully.



Perhaps you have nothing to say that's worth saying, and it upsets you that people see this. On the evidence of this thread, that would be a reasonable conclusion.

We can speculate like this all day, or you could post something that actually resembled more than a Brand encomium.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> That's what you would say looking down from that pedestal that you have placed yourself on.



Do you *ever* play the ball, rather than the man?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It would make no difference if he called it racy exciting the greatest thing since fucking bucks fizz. Jesus christ.



Ah, but it clearly does make a difference to Ld222. 
After all, if you can't bring a decent argument to the table, what's left but insinuation, and insinuating someone is anti-Irish is still effective, although arguably not as effective as it once was.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> *What? You think because you liked a couple of posts you misunderstood, people would wade in when the Irish language card was played?* Fuck that. There's a discussion, an argument and when it get's tricky at least have the dignity to stick to your guns or concede without taking the piss. Throw the towel in or fuck off.



What the fuck are you on about? 

"Throw in the towel" 

It's not a boxing box. It's a discussion, which has far from reach it's conclusion.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do you really then think your _handful of gcses_ jibe was helpful worthwhile or made any sort of sense?
> 
> And your explanation of why you did simply doesn't hold up either. You clearly linked erudition to academic achievement then in a following post to intelligence.


You judge and find Brand deficienct, but if anyone ventures an opinion who isn't authorised so to do on your terms, they are making an illegitimate claim to entitlement.


----------



## cesare (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You judge and find Brand deficienct, but if anyone ventures an opinion who isn't authorised so to do on your terms, they are making an illegitimate claim to entitlement.


It's easy enough to criticise Brand's behaviour without making comments about his educational achievements.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You judge and find Brand deficienct, but if anyone ventures an opinion who isn't authorised so to do on your terms, they are making an illegitimate claim to entitlement.


I didn't find him deficient (in fact i made clear it's wider context and conditions that means brand isn't in control of of everything - conditions that he is more than aware of of which make his recent interventions deficient, not him) because he's not been properly accredited with intelligence and erudition via the requisite number of gsces by your bubble. You did.

And talk like you are a human. I'm sure you think that you are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Education is very important but formal qualifications aren't the sole measure of intelligence



I'm well aware of that.
They are, however, *a* "measure of intelligence" insofar as they're a "metric" used by many people in the political and economic elites. I generally have a three-phase interaction with that sort of person:
1) They disregard me because when I speak, I sound like a working class south Londoner (what with *being* a working class south Londoner).
2) If I present my educational credentials, they think I'm bullshitting.
3) When I prove my educational credentials, they try to disregard my right to speak by turning the issue onto my politics.

In other words, for people in the economic and political bubbles, "the right sort of" education - often but not exclusively attendance at the "right" institutions - is the only education of note.  Everything else can be treated as the work of _idiot savants_, which is precisely what your original "erudition" post reduces Brand to.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You judge and find Brand deficienct, but if anyone ventures an opinion who isn't authorised so to do on your terms, they are making an illegitimate claim to entitlement.





cesare said:


> It's easy enough to criticise Brand's behaviour without making comments about his educational achievements.


Indeed, he has no grounds to judge brand on his academic achievements other than the glory of his own and the bubble he knocks around with. What cushy job is her ladyship doing this time, at what university articul8?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> What the fuck are you on about?
> 
> "Throw in the towel"
> 
> It's not a boxing box. It's a discussion, which has far from reach it's conclusion.



Well have a discussion then without educating people about the grammatical meaning of the word 'that' and then accusing people of having a problem with the Irish language. Seriously, who doesn't have a problem with the Irish language? Not that it matters to this thread etc.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, but it clearly does make a difference to Ld222.
> After all, if you can't bring a decent argument to the table, what's left but insinuation, and insinuating someone is anti-Irish is still effective, although arguably not as effective as it once was.



It's not just about ego or winning the argument, to me it's about getting to the bottom what actually went on.

I have not insinuated that you're anti-Irish.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> It's easy enough to criticise Brand's behaviour without making comments about his educational achievements.


1000 posts of it. Then articul8 joins in.


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Well have a discussion then without educating people about the grammatical meaning of the word 'that' and then accusing people of having a problem with the Irish language. Seriously, who doesn't have a problem with the Irish language? Not that it matters to this thread etc.



I'm sure BA knows the meaning of that, it was a fucking joke.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 14, 2014)

Casually Red?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Casually Red?


You're really really rubbish at these  He's just an irish mens rights activist pacifist who supports the violent uprising in mexico.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> I'm sure BA knows the meaning of that, it was a fucking joke.



What? How does he know Easman isn't stringing him along. That?


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> How acceptable is zero GCSEs?


Hopefully, very


----------



## Ld222 (Dec 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> What? How does he know Easman isn't stringing him along. That?



Was Easeman up front with Brand about his political affiliations?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> He isn't erudite at all, except by the standards of c-list celebs.   He is an attention-hungry narcissist with a couple of GCSEs.


oh dear


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Was Easeman up front with Brand about his political affiliations?


you remind me of the bourbons, who famously learned nothing and forgot nothing. only you'll have to work harder on your memory.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Was Easeman up front with Brand about his political affiliations?



Brand had enough time to check who he was sharing a platform with. Doesn't take long.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Was Easeman up front with Brand about his political affiliations?



What? In a 'Hello Russell, did I forget to tell you I was a fash, ah, sorry about that' kind of way?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> Was Easeman up front with Brand about his political affiliations?


Brand talked  to him over an extended period. His views as posted on here were known at this time. Brand felt enthused by them and wanted to include them first in his book then when that fell through (we still don't know why) in a large promotional panel discussion for his book. These views that we know about where there for him to know - plus extra opps that we didn't. Stop being so naive.

And let's assume that such a voracious reader/consumer didn't know - that throws up the very question i asked you this morning that you chose to run away from. How can you trust anything that someone who doesn't do basic fact or background checks does? And then, why are people like you blindly following him.

I don't expect a serious answer from you btw - i know that's not happening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You judge and find Brand deficienct, but if anyone ventures an opinion who isn't authorised so to do on your terms, they are making an illegitimate claim to entitlement.


i take back everything i've said about you and the labour party. it's clear thst's your natural home.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You're really really rubbish at these  He's just an irish mens rights activist pacifist who supports the violent uprising in mexico.


on the auld rule that things happening 3000 miles away are better than doing stuff at home


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> It's easy enough to criticise Brand's behaviour without making comments about his educational achievements.





butchersapron said:


> 1000 posts of it. Then articul8 joins in.


I wasn't criticising his behaviour though. I was criticising the standards of a section of the media for whom Brand is what counts as erudite, and how that plays into Brand's self-image (with very little of substance there to back up those pretensions) if anything, it was his pretentiousness I was mocking not his level of educational attainment.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I wasn't criticising his behaviour though. I was criticising the standards of a section of the media for whom Brand is what counts as erudite, and how that plays into Brand's self-image (with very little of substance there to back up those pretensions) if anything, it was his pretentiousness I was mocking not his level of educational attainment.


You had no need to bring in his educational attainment - none at all. Yet you did.

And now you pretend that you were attacking the media when you were attacking another posters suggestion that he is erudite. That's a total and utter lie.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

I've no idea about Brand's educational background btw.  For all I know he may have a drama degree. The point is the gap between the pretention and the reality.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

coley said:


> Hopefully, very


there are very few people below the age of 15 with any gcses


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

coley said:


> Hopefully, very


& very few people over 44 have any gcses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You judge and find Brand deficienct, but if anyone ventures an opinion who isn't authorised so to do on your terms, they are making an illegitimate claim to entitlement.



No-one has judged him, his motivations, aims and utterances have been questioned.
Now, I realise that such critique and analysis are lamentably under-used in your bubble, but that doesn't excuse your conflating critique with judgement.


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> & very few people over 44 have any gcses.


Buggirinhell they were called "northern counties"  when I was at school.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I've no idea about Brand's educational background btw.  For all I know he may have a drama degree. The point is the gap between the pretention and the reality.


Yeah no idea, just chucked in a few gcses to indicate thick - lacking in intelligence or erudition. By accident. Or just because that's who you are now.

The point is that you chose to publicly say that brand is not erudite or intelligent because he only has a few gcses.  The rest is waffly retreat.

Who is looking like the thick one here right now? Again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, he has no grounds to judge brand on his academic achievements other than the glory of his own and the bubble he knocks around with. What cushy job is her ladyship doing this time, at what university articul8?



There's glory to a BA in philosophomolising?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

coley said:


> Buggirinhell they were called "northern counties"  when I was at school.


when i started school they were o levels. when i left they were gcses.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No-one has judged him, his motivations, aims and utterances have been questioned.
> Now, I realise that such critique and analysis are lamentably under-used in your bubble, but that doesn't excuse your conflating critique with judgement.


If you really want to go down this road, there is no such thing as critique without a normative basis, and norms imply the possibility of judgement.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I've no idea about Brand's educational background btw.  For all I know he may have a drama degree. The point is the gap between the pretention and the reality.


Here we go again, you consider him thick and un-erudite therefore he must have only a few gcses. You cannot grasp this at all can you?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> If you really want to go down this road, there is no such thing as critique without a normative basis, and norms imply the possibility of judgement.


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> when i started school they were o levels. when i left they were gcses.


Sprog


----------



## rekil (Dec 14, 2014)

JimW said:


> Not far off, since the early/mid-eighties. It's the scraggy beard makes me look haggard and past it, honest.





> A 2010 study actually found that men were reverting to more masculine ways of behaviour in response to the recession. The self-grooming metrosexuals were giving way to a more rough and ready aesthetic. Witness the contemporary renaissance of the beard.


That's you that is. And it means you're a nazi. (!)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Ld222 said:


> It's not just about ego or winning the argument, to me it's about getting to the bottom what actually went on.



Except that your posts on this thread do very little to get to the bottom of anything, and your disinclination to actually read the whole thing means that you're attempting to "get to the bottom of" something on minimal information, and expecting others to spoon-feed you links because you can't be arsed to look for them (on this thread) for yourself.



> I have not insinuated that you're anti-Irish.



It's inherent to asking me if I'm mocking the Irish language, or asking me if I have a problem with the Irish language.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here we go again, you consider him thick and un-erudite therefore he must have only a few gcses. You icannot grasp this at all can you?


Who has said he's thick? I've not. I've suggested he's not as clever as he makes out, or the erudite figure the mass media promotes him as.   Someone like Morrissey, who left school without quals, had (or has) much more substance, and yet he wasn't feted as for his political ideas in the same way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

coley said:


> Hopefully, very



Good, because I've got zero, and very few O Levels or CSEs, either!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you remind me of the bourbons, who famously learned nothing and forgot nothing. only you'll have to work harder on your memory.



TBF they took the biscuit.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who has said he's thick? I've not. I've suggested he's not as clever as he makes out, or the erudite figure the mass media promotes him as.   Someone like Morrissey, who left school without quals, had (or has) has much more substance, and yet he wasn't feted as for his political ideas in the same way.


You did  - and then in a following post equated erudition with intelligence. You're a mess. Stop.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Brand had enough time to check who he was sharing a platform with. Doesn't take long.



Yup. Easeman's thoughts and opinions aren't exactly hidden from anyone who can input his name into a search engine.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF they took the biscuit.



The jammy dodgers


----------



## FNG (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's inherent to asking me if I'm mocking the Irish language, or asking me if I have a problem with the Irish language.



Come on now mr panda, everyone knows yiddish isn't a real language,its a made up language like Klingon,Gaelic and Wookie


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who has said he's thick? I've not. I've suggested he's not as clever as he makes out, or the erudite figure the mass media promotes him as.   Someone like Morrissey, who left school without quals, had (or has) much more substance, and yet he wasn't feted as for his political ideas in the same way.


And no, you suggested another poster was wrong on his erudition - not the mass media. And the basis for this was his lack of gcses. That trick (poster/mass media won't work)


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Again on the white van.  That begs the question of whether (aesthetic) mimesis can constute critique in itself.  In that instance the normative basis was ascribed rather than immanent to the image.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> If you really want to go down this road, there is no such thing as critique without a normative basis, and norms imply the possibility of judgement.


could you list yr qualifications so we can all work out whether we're more erudite than you


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Again on the white van.  That begs the question of whether (aesthetic) mimesis can constute critique in itself.  In that instance the normative basis was ascribed rather than immanent to the image.



What the fuck does this even mean?!


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> could you list yr qualifications so we can all work out whether we're more erudite than you


I could, but I'm sure you would cite that as evidence in favour of my argument that the two are non-identical!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Again on the white van.  That begs the question of whether (aesthetic) mimesis can constute critique in itself.  In that instance the normative basis was ascribed rather than immanent to the image.


He means can copying an image be critique in itslef. And that in in this case everyone else was wrong because they spotted what the posh lady thought and was doing (i.e they have real life experience of what it meant). He didn't.

You make my stomach turn


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> What the fuck does this even mean?!


She took a picture.  What the picture "means" cannot necessarily be determined without making assumptions about what she must have meant by it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture.  What the picture "means" cannot necessarily be determined without making assumptions about what she must have meant by it.


Yeah so people made assumptions - correct assumptions. It's called inductive logic. Life operates on it. Some of them deductions are based on social experience.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> What? In a 'Hello Russell, did I forget to tell you I was a fash, ah, sorry about that' kind of way?



Maybe Russell Brand has a touch of jazzz's naivety about him. After all, jazz didn't think his academic truther mate Kollerstrom was an anti-Semite, even *after* he'd trotted out that "swimming pools at Auschwitz" line?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture.  What the picture "means" cannot necessarily be determined without making assumptions about what she must have meant by it.



You sort of have to use pretentious language to dress up a nonsense point like that


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture.  What the picture "means" cannot necessarily be determined without making assumptions about what she must have meant by it.


I give you the reason for Brand or his fuck you all attitude and its popularity.

How come a thicko without a degree like me - and one who isn't in your bubble - can make a monkey of you year after year?


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Good, because I've got zero, and very few O Levels or CSEs, either!


Same here, couldn't find a decent quill on the day.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> What? In a 'Hello Russell, did I forget to tell you I was a fash, ah, sorry about that' kind of way?



Maybe Russell Brand has a touch of jazzz's naivety about him. After all, jazz didn't think his academic truther mate Kollerstrom was an anti-Semite, even *after* he'd trotted out his "swimming pool at Auschwitz" line!


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Again on the white van.  That begs the question of whether (aesthetic) mimesis can constute critique in itself.  In that instance the normative basis was ascribed rather than immanent to the image.


Eh! Wut?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture.  What the picture "means" cannot necessarily be determined without making assumptions about what she must have meant by it.



You told us what it meant, no assumptions needed about what it meant. You told us.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You're really really rubbish at these



I know.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Again on the white van.  That begs the question of whether (aesthetic) mimesis can constute critique in itself.  In that instance the normative basis was ascribed rather than immanent to the image.


Wow, whose feeling insecure today.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> If you really want to go down this road, there is no such thing as critique without a normative basis, and norms imply the possibility of judgement.



What it doesn't imply is that *you* have the right, the competence or the position to judge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> when i started school they were o levels. when i left they were gcses.



Young whippersnapper!


----------



## FNG (Dec 14, 2014)

he's gone mano a mano with brand to wrestle psueds title from his cold stiff erudidite fingers


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What it doesn't imply is that *you* have the right, the competence or the position to judge.


I never said otherwise, but that the critique offered here by others implies a judgement (in the negative).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I never said otherwise, but that the critique offered here by others implies a judgement (in the negative).


MUST TALK LIKE HUMAN


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

> How come a thicko without a degree like me - and one who isn't in your bubble - can make a monkey of you year after year?


You aren't thick, but you very cynically exploit widespread prejudices to mislead.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

Reinstate the Islington 1


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

> but that the critique offered here by others implies a judgement (in the negative).



= people don't like it


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You aren't thick, but you very cynically exploit widespread prejudices to mislead.


A _wicked teacher? _

You self important  cock


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

FNG said:


> Come on now mr panda, everyone knows yiddish isn't a real language,its a made up language like Klingon,Gaelic and Wookie



Anti-Semitic exo-xenophobe!!!


----------



## FNG (Dec 14, 2014)

Its a fair cop i hate those wookie bastards


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> could you list yr qualifications so we can all work out whether we're more erudite than you



A new "credentialsgate"?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

You've just compared yourself to Antonio Negri and say I'm a self-important cock!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You've just compared yourself to Antonio Negri and say I'm a self-important cock!



No,i compared you to the Italian state hunting out this wicked people guilty of:



> You aren't thick, but you very cynically exploit widespread prejudices to mislead.



I mean, this is quite an odd thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

FNG said:


> Its a fair cop i hate those wookie bastards



I don't mind Wookies, it's those demented dwarven Ewok bastards that I loathe, with their dancing, and their jabbering!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> What the fuck does this even mean?!



It means that articul8 believes that spouting a bit of the verbiage he learned at uni will allow him to escape the trap his own stupidity and crassness has set him.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You aren't thick, but you very cynically exploit widespread prejudices to mislead.


How do i do this, what widespread prejudices and mislead away from what end?

That's some crazy shit you're talking.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Who are you? How do you earn a living?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 14, 2014)

This thread is much better now that it's moved from TV personalities to Urban75 ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who are you? How do you earn a living?


I get a stipend from the police for 99.9 pounds a week.

Can you explain this post?



> You aren't thick, but you very cynically exploit widespread prejudices to mislead.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I get a stipend from the police for 99.9 pounds a week.


Is this true or sarcasm? What for?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Is this true or sarcasm? What for?


Wow.

You just lost _everything ever._


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Doesn't like answering questions...what's he got to hide?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Doesn't like answering questions...what's he got to hide?


This is def the way to go. Do it quick though - as soon as the swansea-spurs game is finished i'm off to the social club. I'll be back later to see what the results of you pursuing this path are.


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2014)

Ace.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> She took a picture.  What the picture "means" cannot necessarily be determined without making assumptions about what she must have meant by it.



The key word being "necessarily". Given that many who did make assumptions about what she meant, did so through the context in which she made the tweet of the picture, and on her prior "form", one could argue that those assumptions were necessarily informed by that context, and therefore not the *sweeping* and erroneous assumptions you've been treating them as since Thornberrygate began.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

> I'll be bac


 says the interweb Terminator - never the right time to fess up is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I give you the reason for Brand or his fuck you all attitude and its popularity.
> 
> How come a thicko without a degree like me - and one who isn't in your bubble - can make a monkey of you year after year?



Because he thinks it matters, and you don't, so he'll always have the losers' hand, even when he's holding a winning one.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> says the interweb Terminator - never the right time to fess up is it?


Say it quick - ten minutes left. Expose me.


----------



## rekil (Dec 14, 2014)

Why not make up for your lack of #activism by watching this 90 min video of Owen and Russell.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

coley said:


> Same here, couldn't find a decent quill on the day.



I thought they used wax tablets and styli in your day, or was that sas's day? I get confused!


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Say it quick - ten minutes left. Expose me.


Expose yourself (or is that why you aren't allowed out much?)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Expose yourself (or is that why you aren't allowed out much?)


The greatest brain of the labour party left.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Still doesn't answer questions


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> says the interweb Terminator - never the right time to fess up is it?





ViolentPanda said:


> I thought they used wax tablets and styli in your day, or was that sas's day? I get confused!


Parchment and quills for me, big lump,of sandstone and a chisel for Sas.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Still doesn't answer questions


Indeed, people are lining up with you to ask me them. 2 minutes plus injury. Call me a cop. Don't call me a cop. Either way, you're fucked now.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Is that a threat?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Is that a threat?


fuck you're stupid. this has been your unfinest hour.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Is that a threat?


Wow. 

Off now.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck you're stupid. this has been your unfinest hour.


What in thinking people might answers questions?   How do you justify the blatant double-standard?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> What in thinking people might answers questions?   How do you justify the blatant double-standard?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Emperors mates rate his new clobber


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Emperors mates rate his new clobber


the swans flew over the long lake


----------



## cesare (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Emperors mates rate his new clobber


You seriously don't get why doing "#parklife but he's only got a couple of GCSEs" makes you look like a cunt?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> You seriously don't get why doing "#parklife but he's only got a couple of GCSEs" makes you look like a cunt?


#parklife ? I've agreed people with no formal quals can be erudite and intelligent.  Doesn't justify media in painting Brand as height of eloquence.


----------



## cesare (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> #parklife ? I've agreed people with no formal quals can be erudite and intelligent.  Doesn't justify media in painting Brand as height of eloquence.


That's not what you said. The last page or so has been a massive wriggle by you. And in any event, he *is* eloquent.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

There are loads of reasons to attack brand without putting lack of education into it. Just like attacking edl members for bad teeth etc. And you are a member of party that heloed to create this shit.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

I don't think so. Compared to previous generations of celebs even - eg. Morrissey - no quals but more articulate


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> There are loads of reasons to attack brand without putting lack of education into it. Just like attacking edl members for bad teeth etc. And you are a member of party that heloed to create this shit.


It was nothing to do with formal education, but about how he fails to live up to his self-image as erudite and suave.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It was nothing to do with formal education, but about how he fails to live up to his self-image as erudite and suave.



That is part of why people like him, because he doesn't speak like someone thats used to this stuff. He talks like he's not used to it. It's also why liberals completely missed the point when they attacked bush's intelligence based on things he said


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> It was nothing to do with formal education, but about how he fails to live up to his self-image as erudite and suave.


and you, why do you aim to come across as patronising and ignorant?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

I don't think it's a liberal prejudice to think that Bush is profoundly stupid.  I wouldn't say the same of Brand but I don't see that he justifies the degree of attention he's receiving.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and you, why do you aim to come across as patronising and ignorant?


I could never meet the standard you set in that respect


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I don't think it's a liberal prejudice to think that Bush is profoundly stupid.  I wouldn't say the same of Brand but I don't see that he justifies the degree of attention he's receiving.



I mean the whole 'omg he said nucular/misunderestimate etc' thing

Guy went to harvard AFAIK.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here he is on Brands video thing the trews only two months ago.



Is that the same scouse that was doing all those freeman-of-the-land videos a year or two back?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I could never meet the standard you set in that respect


no, you far exceed what any of the rest of us could dare to dream of


----------



## articul8 (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, you far exceed what any of the rest of us could dare to dream of


You underestimate your own excellence


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You underestimate your own excellence


fuck off you dull, patronising wanker.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 14, 2014)

Pops in to see how the Revolution is going.  Pops out again.


----------



## rekil (Dec 14, 2014)

Only a few months to go until Labour saunters to victory and this beef really takes off.


----------



## cesare (Dec 14, 2014)

copliker said:


> Only a few months to go until Labour saunters to victory and this beef really takes off.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

copliker said:


> Only a few months to go until Labour saunters to victory and this beef really takes off.



I'm more interested in the way in which the people in the so-called People's Assembly and 999 Save The NHS With Burnham react to more of the same from the 'Labour' party


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> How acceptable is zero GCSEs?



That's me.  Really thick, obvs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Is that a threat?



I rather suspect that it's a statement of the state of your credibility (such as it was) on these boards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> That's me.  Really thick, obvs.



Me too. I should have been shot by the education authority once it became obvious that I would never amount to nothing. I will never become someone bubbletastic like what articul8 is.
Okay, so I thank all the unknowable deities of the universe *EVERY FUCKING DAY* that I haven't amounted to what articul8 has, but that's beside the point!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Emperors mates rate his new clobber



"Clobber"? I'm surprised you didn't go the full Mockney and say "_schmutter_".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

articul8 said:


> #parklife ? I've agreed people with no formal quals can be erudite and intelligent.  Doesn't justify media in painting Brand as height of eloquence.



Which is why it's good that they don't.
In fact, the sections of the media most opposed to him do the exact opposite - they imply that his wordiness isn't derived from knowledge, but from his innate pretentiousness.
Now, who else on this thread has described brand's wordiness as "pretentious", hmm?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wow.
> 
> Off now.



Enjoy!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck you're stupid. this has been your unfinest hour.



Nah.
Just one among many, or have you forgotten the Deborah Orr debacle?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> You seriously don't get why doing "#parklife but he's only got a couple of GCSEs" makes you look like a cunt?



And not just any kind of cunt, a condescending one.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now, who else on this thread has described brand's wordiness as "pretentious", hmm?



Me but I have no real problem with Brand's speaking, I don't understand the problem anyone has with that. His writing is just pretentious and bad, there is a strong possibility that it's ghost written by the plagiariser though


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

Here's saint russell on the incident where he smashed a prostitutes phone:

"She went back into the bathroom and started getting dressed and came out wearing her underwear, and I thought, “Bloody hell she looks nice. I wonder if there’s anything I could say to . . .”
But there isn’t. As we picked up the bits of her phone, this atmosphere of faint possibility dissipated all too quickly, and by the time we were going downstairs I was thinking, “This is not looking good—I’m going to have to walk past reception in a minute, five paces behind a crying prostitute.”"

The whole thing is played for laughs.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

Nice guy huh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Nice guy huh?


but he does bring pizza to occupy people in parliament sq[/cheesypoof]


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> but he does bring pizza to occupy people in parliament sq[/cheesypoof]



It's embarrassing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> It's embarrassing.


he's a sexist pig with some very dodgy views and a poor taste in friends. not the sort of person with a great interest in changing society for the better.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> he's a sexist pig with some very dodgy views and a poor taste in friends. not the sort of person with a great interest in changing society for the better.



They said that about Hitler.


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I mean the whole 'omg he said nucular/misunderestimate etc' thing
> 
> Guy went to harvard AFAIK.


In fairness how many pig ignorant bastards on both sides of The HoCs went to Oxbridge?


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

copliker said:


> Only a few months to go until Labour saunters to victory and this beef really takes off.


Has Milliband resigned??


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

coley said:


> In fairness how many pig ignorant bastards on both sides of The HoCs went to Oxbridge?



That's true. I think you know what I am talking about - the whole OMG HE SAID MISUNDERESTIMATE lol


----------



## coley (Dec 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Here's saint russell on the incident where he smashed a prostitutes phone:
> 
> "She went back into the bathroom and started getting dressed and came out wearing her underwear, and I thought, “Bloody hell she looks nice. I wonder if there’s anything I could say to . . .”
> But there isn’t. As we picked up the bits of her phone, this atmosphere of faint possibility dissipated all too quickly, and by the time we were going downstairs I was thinking, “This is not looking good—I’m going to have to walk past reception in a minute, five paces behind a crying prostitute.”"
> ...



But he has changed, he has seen the light, lessons have been learned, and when he goes public and denounces JR as an absolute misogynistic git, I will become a convert and subscribe to the trews
His flirtation with fascism and anti semitism can be tucked under the carpet, youthful ignorance etc etc.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck off you dull, patronising wanker.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 14, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> They said that about Hitler.



"Say what you like about Adolf, but he's always kind to his pets".


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2014)

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/12/public-revolt-russell-brand/


Pickman's model


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Is that the same scouse that was doing all those freeman-of-the-land videos a year or two back?


Yes.


----------



## coley (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/12/public-revolt-russell-brand/
> 
> 
> Pickman's model


Aye, but is that a real UGoV site? Don't think so


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

coley said:


> Aye, but is that a real UGoV site? Don't think so



Must have been the jews. Where's easeman?


----------



## coley (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Must have been the jews. Where's easeman?



Having a late night drink with brandyphews


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

He thanks people who rant about  jewish marxists being behind a jewish marxist plot to run the world.

Defenders, defend. Please, because if you don't, well, what have you to say about anything.

I give you until noon tmw.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

This is laurence easeman fb by the way which is public. 

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007420129082&fref=ts


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

In case any missed.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> This is laurence easeman fb by the way which is public.
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007420129082&fref=ts





> *Laurence Easeman*
> 11 December at 23:02 ·
> Russell Brand telling the audience that Nigel Farage is backed by the Bankers in the city, what Russell didn't tell them is his on/off bird's family is the one backing Farage.
> 
> ...



Well the Easeman crowd seem to have some sympathy for Brand anyway.


----------



## FNG (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> This is laurence easeman fb by the way which is public.
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007420129082&fref=ts



Froggy if you're still looking for stuff about when did Brand know, Peter Tatchell is on record as raising his concerns and refusing to share a platform with Easeman at Brands book launch october 23rd 2014. Tatchell was alerted by online activists shortly after announcing the preposed appearance,and quickly verified his concerns it is highly likely that the same sources were also attempting to warn brand though i haven't gone to the effort of faxt checking that claim.

If you need to cite references Independent and morningstar http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/...-launch-amid-row-over-racist-pal#.VI6JaSusWUU


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

I'm being bullied - help me auntie mystic russell. Answer = be tolerant.

This is the concentrated day after day informed comment that cheesey poof talked about?


----------



## cesare (Dec 15, 2014)

That Owen Jones ad should have had a trigger warning


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> That Owen Jones ad should have had a trigger warning


Didn't see it - one of the beautiful things of adblock. No oxbridge faces.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


>


i don't know why you liked that articul8, he was agreeing you're a dull, patronising wanker.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

Did articul8 out me as spook yet btw?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> That Owen Jones ad should have had a trigger warning


it usually does, instant projectile vomiting.


----------



## cesare (Dec 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't see it - one of the beautiful things of adblock. No oxbridge faces.


There's a "skip ad" function after about 3 secs, thankfully.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Did articul8 out me as spook yet btw?


I never accused you of being a spook.  I just note your reticence to explain how you earn a crust.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 15, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I never accused you of being a spook.  I just note your reticence to explain how you earn a crust.


So he's a catalogue underwear model? So what?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I never accused you of being a spook.  I just note your reticence to explain how you earn a crust.


You should be on here grovelling and apologising after yesterdays posts.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> So he's a catalogue underwear model? So what?


XL range a specialty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I never accused you of being a spook.  I just note your reticence to explain how you earn a crust.


you've got much to be reticent about.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm being bullied - help me auntie mystic russell. Answer = be tolerant.
> 
> This is the concentrated day after day informed comment that cheesey poof talked about?



"..._everything's alright when you're older..."_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> "..._everything's alright when you're older..."_


Nice to see you again broggers - but yeah, that was pretty much it. It's wrong advice on so many levels never mind him putting himself in this advisor role.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm being bullied - help me auntie mystic russell. Answer = be tolerant.
> 
> This is the concentrated day after day informed comment that cheesey poof talked about?


if the answer is russell brand, you should rethink the question


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 15, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I never accused you of being a spook.  I just note your reticence to explain how you earn a crust.


Everyone should be willing to share such information in the tolerant environment New Labour left us.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> Everyone should be willing to share such information in the tolerant environment New Labour left us.



Quite right...and if they refuse...expect to have their house & vehicle tweeted so that we can all have a good guess about what they're up to. Anyone got an image of Butcher's gaff?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Quite right...and if they refuse...expect to have their house & vehicle tweeted so that we can all have a good guess about what they're up to. Anyone got an image of Butcher's gaff?


i'm sure articul8 does.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure articul8 does.







image of #Bristol


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

articul8 said:


> image of #Bristol


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

Just read a Facebook debate between sp members during which someone said they wouldn't be comfortable campaigning if TUSC got an endorsement from Russell Brand or having his name on the leaflet. The replies were things like 'criticising brand for his wealth is helping the class enemy'  and comparing Russell Brands support to using an iPhone.

I know that I am not supposed to care about what the sp do as im no longer a member of it but it made me go  and then


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

A disgruntled former comrade I was chatting to last night reckons their trying to recruit him


----------



## articul8 (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Just read a Facebook debate between sp members during which someone said they wouldn't be comfortable campaigning if TUSC got an endorsement from Russell Brand or having his name on the leaflet. The replies were things like 'criticising brand for his wealth is helping the class enemy'  and comparing Russell Brands support to using an iPhone.
> 
> I know that I am not supposed to care about what the sp do as im no longer a member of it but it made me go  and then


They seem to be getting desperate for a quick fix to becoming a credible electoral alternative.  Charismatic person with media interest seems to offer the chance of a bit more exposure.  They're probably willing to overlook the (considerable) downsides.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

articul8 said:


> They seem to be getting desperate for a quick fix to becoming a credible electoral alternative.  Charismatic person with media interest seems to offer the chance of a bit more exposure.  They're probably willing to overlook the (considerable) downsides.



I couldn't believe what I was reading.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I couldn't believe what I was reading.


what, a post by articul8 which makes some vague sense?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> This is laurence easeman fb by the way which is public.
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007420129082&fref=ts


He refers to the Labour Party as "the Marxist Party". Fucking hilarious. Does Miliband know about this sudden change in his party's ideology?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 15, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> He refers to the Labour Party as "the Marxist Party". Fucking hilarious. Does Miliband know about this sudden change in his party's ideology?


its the old one where links to organised labour= giant zombie lenin destroying the world.

And that's before we get into how badly the modern plp uses union money and fails to etc etc


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> A disgruntled former comrade I was chatting to last night reckons their trying to recruit him



Would probably be a good thing.

Not for the SP. Not in the way that they think it would. It might well fuck 'em over in a myriad of ways.

But generally.

Channels Brand down some blind alleys, stops him being such a loose cannon, the SP could function as a way of quarantine from more vulnerable groups and campaigns. Might put a lid on some of his more dodgy musings too.

Doesn't solve the problem of course but might neuter it a little to the benefit of the rest of us.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

Let's get this clear though - this is only someone that brand relied on and was a central part of his vision during his rebirth - not brand himself. This is really really important - brand is very easily led and - judging by all the extreme-pro-brand people, they are gullible too. So there is a scene doing this -and they are targeting it. Brand was a target. ARE YOU A TARGET?!!!

Mungy apart, he's wrote good no nonsense direct stuff


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> "Say what you like about Adolf, but he's always kind to his pets".



Well, except for Blondi the Alsation, who he shot in the head.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, except for Blondi the Alsation, who he shot in the head.



I knew he was a wrongun!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> A disgruntled former comrade I was chatting to last night reckons their trying to recruit him


I can't see that and certainly can't see Brand accepting. If you read his book he is more into the sort of direct action, anti-election anarchism of people like David Graeber than any brand of trostkyism or vanguardism. In fact he specifically repudiates leadership:


> The answer to the quandry of how to reorganise society isn't new leaders within the system, the answer isn't leaders at all. The answer is, of course, simple: we can run our own lives and our own communities.


And he writes (or his ghost-writer does) admiringly of the Spanish Revolution as described by George Orwell in _Homage to Catalonia_. I would have thought he'd be more likely to join the Anarchist Federation than SPEW. But I imagine he won't endorse any particular group but, like Chomsky, all those committed to direct action and future society as a federation of self-administering communities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2014)

articul8 said:


> image of #Bristol



Like any sane Bristolian would have the crossed hammers in public view.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, except for Blondi the Alsation, who he shot in the head.


You would of left her to the less than kind mercies of the Eastern horde?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

I'm kinda hoping they do recruit him now.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

I'm really fucked off by the fact the sexism stuff surrounding rb seems not to be an issue with the socialist party at all. I mean I shouldn't be surprised but jesus.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can't see that and certainly can't see Brand accepting. If you read his book he is more into the sort of direct action, anti-election anarchism of people like David Graeber than any brand of trostkyism or vanguardism. In fact he specifically repudiates leadership:
> 
> And he writes (or his ghost-writer does) admiringly of the Spanish Revolution as described by George Orwell in _Homage to Catalonia_. I would have thought he'd be more likely to join the Anarchist Federation than SPEW. But I imagine he won't endorse any particular group but, like Chomsky, all those committed to direct action and future society as a federation of self-administering communities.


The AF wouldn't let him in my diggy hostility clause mate.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I'm really fucked off by the fact the sexism stuff surrounding rb seems not to be an issue with the socialist party at all. I mean I shouldn't be surprised but jesus.


Celebritisation and the result- seen it in scotland.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can't see that and certainly can't see Brand accepting. If you read his book he is more into the sort of direct action, anti-election anarchism of people like David Graeber than any brand of trostkyism or vanguardism. In fact he specifically repudiates leadership:
> 
> And he writes (or his ghost-writer does) admiringly of the Spanish Revolution as described by George Orwell in _Homage to Catalonia_. I would have thought he'd be more likely to join the Anarchist Federation than SPEW. But I imagine he won't endorse any particular group but, like Chomsky, all those committed to direct action and future society as a federation of self-administering communities.




Franco could be beat via 'liquid democracy'. That is if you like a tory candidates position on one thing vote for them via the internet.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Franco could be beat via 'liquid democracy'. That is if you like a tory candidates position on one thing vote for them via the internet.


Are you sure that's what "liquid democracy" implies? According to this entry on wikipedia it doesn't sound a bad idea. It seems a bit like the system of "mandated delegates" that Marx praised the Paris Commune for and that Lenin claimed the Russian soviets were based on.

Anyway, that's not the point. Is it being advocated by Brand and others for making political decisions now under capitalism or to be implemented after capitalism has been abolished? Not the same.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Franco could be beat via 'liquid democracy'.


sadly all stuart christie had with him was the 'solid democracy'.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Are you sure that's what "liquid democracy" implies? According to this entry on wikipedia it doesn't sound a bad idea. It seems a bit like the system of "mandated delegates" that Marx praised the Paris Commune for and that Lenin claimed the Russian soviets were based on.
> 
> Anyway, that's not the point. Is it being advocated by Brand and others for making political decisions now under capitalism or to be implemented after capitalism has been abolished? Not the same.


I'm 100% sure that it is how brand used it. To compare it to 1871, grow up.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm 100% sure that it is how brand used it. To compare it to 1871, grow up.


You could be right about Brand. Maybe he did have in mind what the Pirate Party propose. I don't know. But it wasn't me who made the comparison to 1871 in Paris but whoever wrote the wikipedia article I gave a link to. This is what it says:



> The internal policies of the Paris Commune are seen as the real-world precursor to the more formalized notions of modern delegative democracy.[_citation needed_]
> 
> Early Soviets,[2] before a Bolshevik majority was reached. Delegative democracy was gradually eroded in favor of more representational forms of governance.
> 
> The Industrial Workers of the World labor union uses multiple levels of democracy, including delegative democracy. Local branches are controlled directly democratically by local members. These branches once per year elect, and vote on direction for, delegates to send to a yearly general convention, at which they carry out deliberations and construct referendums. The convention has no power to make and enforce decisions on its own; changes are accomplished by way of mailed referendum ballot. This yearly ballot is also used to elect members to various union administrative roles. Alternatively to the delegative process, members may add proposals to the ballot by initiative.


Some other organisations are run on the same basis.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 15, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> You could be right about Brand. Maybe he did have in mind what the Pirate Party propose. I don't know. But it wasn't me who made the comparison to 1871 in Paris but whoever wrote the wikipedia article I gave a link to. This is what it says:
> 
> Some other organisations are run on the same basis.



Well spotted


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

Its not looking good

Just putting this here

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Russell brand pua

There's a string of associations with 'pickup artists' dating back years.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Its not looking good
> 
> Just putting this here
> 
> ...



I could only see Neil Strauss (didn't watch the youtube vid), from 2011, and then lots of posts on pua blogs/forums about Brand. Grim, obviously, but people need to be given space to change and iirc he's said he's trying to address his sexism, he needs to be given space to show that he is, his denouncement of Julien Blanc does show that, although if he's not said anything about Neil Strauss in that, or his past association with at least one pua wanker, then that's a bit suss really.
I suppose I should see exactly what he's said recently about his sexism, but I certainly cba tonight.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

BigTom said:


> I could only see Neil Strauss (didn't watch the youtube vid), from 2011, and then lots of posts on pua blogs/forums about Brand. Grim, obviously, but people need to be given space to change and iirc he's said he's trying to address his sexism, he needs to be given space to show that he is, his denouncement of Julien Blanc does show that, although if he's not said anything about Neil Strauss in that, or his past association with at least one pua wanker, then that's a bit suss really.
> I suppose I should see exactly what he's said recently about his sexism, but I certainly cba tonight.



Agree with that tbh.


----------



## elbows (Dec 15, 2014)

Agree with it too, although looking at the quote on the cover of Neil Strauss's book makes it harder to be nice and reasonable.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

http://wwwdotpualingodotcom/?s=russell+brand&submit 

First four /five entries.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 15, 2014)

elbows said:


> Agree with it too, although looking at the quote on the cover of Neil Strauss's book makes it harder to be nice and reasonable.


Fucking hell


----------



## BigTom (Dec 15, 2014)

yeah  He needs to be pretty fierce in his renunciation of this.


----------



## elbows (Dec 15, 2014)

I won't hold my breath, if for no other reason than he tends to be far more fickle than fierce at the best of times, let alone when defending himself.

Even if he manages to atone for these sexist sins, I still won't be able to take him seriously unless he zooms in and lingers on subjects rather than being all over the place.

And he better keep doing the Trews till long after it can be cynically written off as a book marketing campaign.

It's all far too Nathan Barley for me, especially right now I am thinking of SugarApe.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

http://gentlemensocietydotcom/seductive-power-russell-brand/


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

Russell Brand and Neil Strauss:


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

By the way this is the first time I will say this about a youtube clip but I recommend reading the comments on those videos.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2014)

Hooking Up Tips with Russell Brand:  

He's very well known in the industry of 'pulling women', there are fawning posts from puas dating back to 2002.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I'm really fucked off by the fact the sexism stuff surrounding rb seems not to be an issue with the socialist party at all. I mean I shouldn't be surprised but jesus.



Proving the hierarchical priorities in socialist groups once again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I'm really fucked off by the fact the sexism stuff surrounding rb seems not to be an issue with the socialist party at all. I mean I shouldn't be surprised but jesus.


wrp > swp > sp?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2014)

i popped into sainsbury's earlier and saw they stocked this peculiar book. i looked in vain for any marx or brinton tho.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 15, 2014)

bit off-topic, but thought I'd risk it.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 16, 2014)

He doesn't strike me as someone mature or sensible even compared to someone say in their early 20s. A bit of Luis Suarez about him? But he is in his 40s is he not? We know for a fact he is not a wise man. Charismatic and funny yes to an extent, but also an associate of 'pick up artists' and a new wave of anti-semites. Why are people prepared to ignore this AND invest hope and credibility into such a shady guy? If you were to create a false leader of the disaffected, someone to absorb waves of skepticism and opposition I couldn't create a more suitable person from my imagination than Russell Brand as he currently operates. 

Its all been said but not answered. Its silly to keep popping up with the latest Trews. In fact it shows a lack of respect for the argument given the investigation by people on THIS THREAD which has shown him to be a supporter of anti-semitic conspiracy theorists and sexist 'pick up artists'. Its there. Read it and respond and explain if you would have us listen to, trust and respect this man.


----------



## Sue (Dec 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck you're stupid. this has been your unfinest hour.



A bold claim that I fear you may soon have to revise. It's one car crash after another.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/kNot-Entang...-woman-ebook/dp/B00NI9IIUO/ref=cm_rdp_product there's also this, with the usual caveats about taking with a pinch of salt but I am halfway through it now and it seems all too believable given other things I've read, but again, usual caveats apply. I've downloaded a copy in case it gets taken down.


Reading it I actually feel quite sorry for him in some ways, I think he probably needs help not being made into a messiah by the left.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 16, 2014)

Seems odd that the book uses pseudonyms but the synopsis doesn't.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Seems odd that the book uses pseudonyms but the synopsis doesn't.



I know. As I said I can't vouch for the content or anything, someone linked to it on fb, but I suggest people read it, it seems quite believable to me based on all the info in this thread but you never know. Dunno what to make of it tbh.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 16, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Its silly to keep popping up with the latest Trews. In fact it shows a lack of respect for the argument given the investigation by people on THIS THREAD which has shown him to be a supporter of anti-semitic conspiracy theorists and sexist 'pick up artists'. Its there. Read it and respond and explain if you would have us listen to, trust and respect this man.



Not sure what to say tbh and the thread is moving too fast for my time limitations.  I read his book.  He seems to accept his failings.  I presume he's calmed down a bit and he now seems to be focused on god, meditation and trying to find some satisfaction in the world that he couldn't find before and seems to crave.  I believe he's stopped the drugs.  Don't know about the rest.  But he knows he's under great scrutiny atm.

So clearly he has a past.  But I remind myself that he seems to be doing something worthwhile currently and is probably switching on a lot of younger folk who are not switched on.  He certainly doesn't seem to be pushing ideas or concepts promoting womanising or conspiracy theories recently.  Not that I've seen.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 16, 2014)

shaman75 said:


> Not sure what to say tbh and the thread is moving too fast for my time limitations.  I read his book.  He seems to accept his failings.  I presume he's calmed down a bit and he now seems to be focused on god, meditation and trying to find some satisfaction in the world that he couldn't find before and seems to crave.  I believe he's stopped the drugs.  Don't know about the rest.  But he knows he's under great scrutiny atm.
> 
> So clearly he has a past.  But I remind myself that he seems to be doing something worthwhile currently and is probably switching on a lot of younger folk who are not switched on.  He certainly doesn't seem to be pushing ideas or concepts promoting womanising or conspiracy theories recently.  Not that I've seen.



This is a perfect example of excusing a bullshit merchant. Stop being so foggy and make a real argument.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 16, 2014)

I think I'll just not waste any more of my time tbh.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 16, 2014)

On Urban 75 or Russel?


----------



## Humberto (Dec 16, 2014)

Still await a half-decent Brand acolyte.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 16, 2014)

_


Humberto said:



			He doesn't strike me as someone mature or sensible even compared to someone say in their early 20s. A bit of Luis Suarez about him? But he is in his 40s is he not? We know for a fact he is not a wise man. Charismatic and funny yes to an extent, but also an associate of 'pick up artists' and a new wave of anti-semites. Why are people prepared to ignore this AND invest hope and credibility into such a shady guy? If you were to create a false leader of the disaffected, someone to absorb waves of skepticism and opposition I couldn't create a more suitable person from my imagination than Russell Brand as he currently operates.

Its all been said but not answered. Its silly to keep popping up with the latest Trews. In fact it shows a lack of respect for the argument given the investigation by people on THIS THREAD which has shown him to be a supporter of anti-semitic conspiracy theorists and sexist 'pick up artists'. Its there. Read it and respond and explain if you would have us listen to, trust and respect this man.
		
Click to expand...

_
Seriously?

A rational person considers primary sources first and foremost and dismisses personal hit pieces for the garbage that they are.  It so happens on this topic, Russell Brand's _The Trews_ is the primary source.  You're saying his _Trews_ should be ignored and only the silly personal character assassinations on this thread deserve to be discussed?

Are you not aware? _ Logical fallacies_ (e.g., _ad hominems, guilt-by-association_) are used by politicians and the media to divert public attention from issues that matter -- corporate fascism, media propaganda, torture, wars, water hikes, rent hikes, poverty, environmental destruction, etc. These are the issues Russell Brand is raising, and because his audience is growing (more people listen to him than to the media) he constitutes a threat, a threat that must be stopped.

Hence, to suggest that we ignore the _Trews_ and focus on the media hit pieces and gossip it engenders here and elsewhere is to be duped by the elite into doing their bidding. They don't want people to listen to The Trews.  That's exactly why people _should_ listen, if for no other reason than to question "what is it 'they' don't want us to hear?" Listen and decide the issues for yourself.  Only then will you have an INFORMED opinion on the subject worthy of consideration.

Don't be fooled.  THINK.

Russell Brand is not important, the issues he raises on _The Trews_ ARE.

shaman75 has posted a Trews interview that I suggest is more important to hear and consider than all the tabloid silliness on this thread.



shaman75 said:


> bit off-topic, but thought I'd risk it.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 16, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Russell Brand is not important, the issues he raises on _The Trews_ ARE.


most of which will have also been covered on urban, probably in considerably more depth than Brand can manage, and with less credulity.

Maybe he's just this generation's version of Mark Thomas or something, but Mark Thomas always seemed to have a bit more about him, a bit more nouse, a bit more substance, like he'd actually deeply research the subjects he was talking about in advance of taking about them. Brand seems to be little more than froth to me, a skim reader at best, without any real ability to do any sort of thorough research


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 16, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> They don't want people to listen to The Trews.  That's exactly why people _should_ listen, if for no other reason than to question "what is it 'they' don't want us to hear?"



Who is 'they'? Who does Brand think 'they' are?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 16, 2014)

Oh yeah, Russell brand's past use and endorsement of pua shit, some of the worst misogyny that exists on this planet, not a primary source, not at all relevant to a political discussion.

PUA shit, active stuff, has he really and explicitly denounced it, has he learnt that it these views are unacceptable to air in public, or that they are unacceptable, and how do we tell the difference from the outside?

I never want to place myself politically next to someone who views women in the way pua wankers do.


----------



## FNG (Dec 16, 2014)

free spirit said:


> most of which will have also been covered on urban, probably in considerably more depth than Brand can manage, and with less credulity.
> 
> Maybe he's just this generation's version of Mark Thomas or something, but Mark Thomas always seemed to have a bit more about him, a bit more nouse, a bit more substance, like he'd actually deeply research the subjects he was talking about in advance of taking about them. Brand seems to be little more than froth to me, a skim reader at best, without any real ability to do any sort of thorough research



Think you are being over fair comparing him to mark Thomas, more the generations Diana Spencer. 

 BTW what did Brand bring to that interview with M Begg? Apart from framing his questions and interjections around the concept of a dark side.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 16, 2014)

I see from Twitter this morning that rb has sunk to a new low, worse than associating with racists and fascists, worse than his misogyny and association with misogynist. He interviewed Nick Clegg about drugs last night, and was endorsed (about drug legislation) by clegg  don't get much lower than that


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

To be honest I agree with everything that's been said by others about giving people space to change but this isn't a confused kid on a edl demo this is a multimillionaire celeb approaching 40 who has a long association with puas and other very dodgy types, the more I google the worse it gets, denouncing that Julien fella and claiming he didn't know is simply not good enough, he needs to be honest about and make a total retraction. Watch those videos I posted ffs.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

...and y'know what?

Let's pretend for a moment that Brand has changed/is misunderstood/is actually the loveliest bloke imaginable.

Then what?

Do all the issues about having celebrity figureheads disappear in a puff of smoke?


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

I also note in passing the irony of some of Brand's defenders urging us to stop believing the media and, er, start believing a celebrity.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i popped into sainsbury's earlier and saw they stocked this peculiar book. i looked in vain for any marx or brinton tho.


Is that a good or a bad thing? Ironically, the book does contain views similar to those of Brinton.

Here's an advert for the book seen at a tube station in outer London (Northwood in fact) and presumably elsewhere:







All this publicity for the word "revolution" must have some effect, musn't it? Eg allowing those of us who've been using the word a chance to get in on the debate.

Reading this thread, though, it doesn't seem possible to separate the message from the messenger in this case but you'd have thought it ought to be.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

That's terrible.

"The people who think the system works, work for the system"

What elitist, divisive, posturing bullshit.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

Yeah how dare people point out any of this. How divisive. 

Jimmy Savile gave money to charity you know.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 16, 2014)

Where have we seen revolution written like that before?

Oh.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

And a few of people on the left thought Ron Paul was great because he wants to legalise drugs.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

chilango said:


> That's terrible.
> 
> "The people who think the system works, work for the system"
> 
> What elitist, divisive, posturing bullshit.


How exactly, and independently of who it's associated with, is this statement (1) elitist, (2) divisive and (3) bullshit?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Is that a good or a bad thing? Ironically, the book does contain views similar to those of Brinton.
> 
> Here's an advert for the book seen at a tube station in outer London (Northwood in fact) and presumably elsewhere:
> 
> ...



That's the stupidest thing I have read in some time. You want people to ignore all the issues raised because he's given the word revolution some publicity?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

You fucking deserve to lose.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> How exactly, and independently of who it's associated with, is this statement (1) elitist, (2) divisive and (3) bullshit?



To me it's patronising more than it is 1, 2 and 3 - the book is being presented as a guide to waking up the sleeping sheeple or something. Well frankly I think most people are 'awake' already to the failures of 'the system'. and you can see that in open hostility to politicians, foreign wars, the decline in voting, the decline in political party membership, the rise of UKIP and that's just a start.

The 'sheeple' don't need some celebrity to 'wake them up' and tell them to meditate a revolution into being


----------



## J Ed (Dec 16, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> That's the stupidest thing I have read in some time. You want people to ignore all the issues raised because he's given the word revolution some publicity?



Might as well vote UKIP cos Farage calls his party a 'People's Army' - the bloke is obviously a sincere Maoist.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> How exactly, and independently of who it's associated with, is this statement (1) elitist, (2) divisive and (3) bullshit?



Many people think "the system works". This slogan dismisses them. All of us "work for the system" (hey, that's capitalism for ya!) this slogan dismisses us too.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

It's not surprising this wake up the sheeple shit is espoused by a former pickup artist. It's the same mentality.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Oh yeah, Russell brand's past use and endorsement of pua shit, some of the worst misogyny that exists on this planet, not a primary source, not at all relevant to a political discussion.
> 
> PUA shit, active stuff, has he really and explicitly denounced it, has he learnt that it these views are unacceptable to air in public, or that they are unacceptable, and how do we tell the difference from the outside?
> 
> I never want to place myself politically next to someone who views women in the way pua wankers do.


Ask him if he's denounced it. It should be a precondition for his involvement in anything that he denounces this shit.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> You want people to ignore all the issues raised because he's given the word revolution some publicity?


No.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 16, 2014)

Since posting on this thread I've started getting David Icke recommendations from Google. Says it all really.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

I don't want to have anything to do with movement that idolises someone that has form for that level of misogyny and claims that he 'didnt know' just like he 'didnt know' about that bloke being a nazi and he 'didnt know' about icke. Why do you think that there are so few, relatively speaking, women active in leftist politics?  Why do you think people end up going for stuff like intersectionalist views and identity politics let alone the utter failure of the left to do anything on the lines of creating a revolution, fuck even Farage is doing a better job of purging the sexists and racists from the ranks of ukip rather than claiming that they are giving the word revolution some much needed publiciry. It makes me sick


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

Im serious, every time someone in ukip says something racist farage has got rid of them, or seemed to, whereas wtf are we doing?  Oh he gives the word revolution some publicity. That's all right then.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 16, 2014)

chilango said:


> Many people think "the system works". This slogan dismisses them. All of us "work for the system" (hey, that's capitalism for ya!) this slogan dismisses us too.



It's working well for RB. He's bought Olivier's old house in Hollywood, has a sitcom in development with Fox and a lavish book deal with Random House who are owned by the notoriously tax efficient Pearson PLC.

Anybody who sees this Revolution stuff as anything other than a money spinning comedy bit is credulous to a medically dangerous level.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

chilango said:


> Many people think "the system works". This slogan dismisses them. All of us "work for the system" (hey, that's capitalism for ya!) this slogan dismisses us too.


I agree that's a possible interpretation but I don't think it was aimed at people who think that "the (capitalist) system" is the only one possible but at those who defend it as a system that works for most people. In any event it contradicts J Ed's view:


> Well frankly I think most people are 'awake' already to the failures of 'the system'


In that case it can't be a criticism of most people.

Isn't a more straightforward interpretation of the slogan ("The people who think the system works work for the system") that those who are putting out propaganda for the system are doing it in the interest of the system?

But would the slogan be criticised if it hadn't been associated with the person we're discussing? There seems to be a lot of throwing out the baby with the bathwater going on here or is it throwing out the bathwater with the baby.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

Yes. That's exactly what this is about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> All this publicity for the word "revolution" must have some effect, musn't it? Eg allowing those of us who've been using the word a chance to get in on the debate.


you must have been a great fan of the watney's red barrel campaign of the 1970s then


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2014)

If 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 made a "revolutionary".....

Probably the best they could hope for...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you must have been a great fan of the watney's red barrel campaign of the 1970s then


Yes, I remember that. I've still got one of their "red revolution" beer mats in the shape of a grenade. Not my idea of revolution though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I agree that's a possible interpretation but I don't think it was aimed at people who think that "the (capitalist) system" is the only one possible but at those who defend it as a system that works for most people. In any event it contradicts J Ed's view:
> In that case it can't be a criticism of most people.
> 
> Isn't a more straightforward interpretation of the slogan ("The people who think the system works work for the system") that those who are putting out propaganda for the system are doing it in the interest of the system?
> ...


Don't spgb this thread please.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't spgb this thread please.


I'm not. But you just have. Anyway, who started this thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'm not. But you just have. Anyway, who started this thread?


The spgb - and you've clearly engaging in a bit of substitution here with brand sitting in for the SPGB.

Have to say after reading last nights posts the reek of sheridan off him is appalling. Not that i've never mentioned it before mind, but those links...


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Ask him if he's denounced it. It should be a precondition for his involvement in anything that he denounces this shit.


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?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2014)

Agree with all that Wilf.

I also agree people can change. And someone like Brand changing his misogynist views publicly would be a good thing in itself.

Not exactly holding my breath though.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 16, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> _
> _
> Seriously?
> 
> A rational person considers.....



Enough gossip. Please get back to the real issues.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I agree that's a possible interpretation but I don't think it was aimed at people who think that "the (capitalist) system" is the only one possible but at those who defend it as a system that works for most people. In any event it contradicts J Ed's view:
> In that case it can't be a criticism of most people.
> 
> Isn't a more straightforward interpretation of the slogan ("The people who think the system works work for the system") that those who are putting out propaganda for the system are doing it in the interest of the system?
> ...


tbh i think you'll find the people who thinks the system works don't work for the system. the people who work for the system rarely think the system works as they see what's going on every day.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The spgb - and you've clearly engaging in a bit of substitution here with brand sitting in for the SPGB.
> 
> Have to say after reading last nights posts the reek of sheridan off him is appalling. Not that i've never mentioned it before mind, but those links...



More coming soon and I agree. There are associations between him and PUAs going back to 2002. I think both a denunciation and honesty by him is needed. Not just 'i didn't know' bollocks.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> But would the slogan be criticised if it hadn't been associated with the person we're discussing? There seems to be a lot of throwing out the baby with the bathwater going on here or is it throwing out the bathwater with the baby.



I think I've been fairly consistent in aiming my primary criticism at the role rather than the individual.

That the individual in question is at best heavily flawed, at worst dodgy as fuck, only brings matters to head more rapidly.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

...and the whole thing reeks with the missionary stench of the guru/priest sending forth their disciples to enlighten the savages.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

so no ones going to defend the PUA connection. 

first I heard of it was today, can't really believe some posters are still singing his praises really,.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...and the whole thing reeks with the stench of the guru/priest/missionary sending forth their disciples to eighteen the savages.




nobody is eighteening me


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody is eighteening me


you were eighteened a long time ago. you're suppressing the memory.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...and the whole thing reeks with the missionary stench of the guru/priest sending forth their disciples to enlighten the savages.


Surely you mean _getting it into the mainstream._


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> so no ones going to defend the PUA connection.
> 
> first I heard of it was today, can't really believe some posters are still singing his praises really,.




he's the greatest genius since peter doherty 

[/cheesypoof]


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Surely you mean _getting it into the mainstream._


i'd rather leave it in a stagnant backwater, where it belongs.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Surely you mean _getting it into the mainstream._



You mean getting a media creation on the media to tell everyone not to trust the media?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

chilango said:


> You mean getting a media creation on the media to tell everyone not to trust the media?


Whoa - I've been eighteeened!


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

Bastards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

i see jemima khan's expressed her revulsion at today's events in pakistan. has russell brand?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

chilango said:


> Bastards.


Could be worse


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

n-n-n-n-n-n eighteen


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have to say after reading last nights posts the reek of sheridan off him is appalling. Not that i've never mentioned it before mind, but those links...


Agreed. Strong parallels.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> n-n-n-n-n-n eighteen


Tempted to like


----------



## rekil (Dec 16, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Since posting on this thread I've started getting David Icke recommendations from Google. Says it all really.


My youtube recommendations page is full of him (Brand not Icke). Russell on Letterman, Russell with some psychedelic weirdo, Russell yakking with Alex Jones, Russell on the BBC, Russell on a sofa with 2 young women who won a charity auction - prize - a day with Russell. Then I have a look at a list of the year's "left leaning" albums, and there he is again, getting the mention.



> 3. GONG - I SEE YOU
> 
> Revolution, the new book by British comedian-turned activist Russell Brand, covers a lot of ground that will be familiar to committed activists. What might be more surprising is his pushing of the power of meditation to bring about change, as he urges people worldwide to tune into the oneness that unites all humanity.


Argh.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 16, 2014)

Not been following the thread but our Noam on Russell Brand after Brand had asked whether Chomsky bit someone's ear at summer camp (of all the things you'd want to ask Chomsky, that shows a good grasp of the world's essential questions).



> What do you think of Russell Brand?
> 
> Actually, I don't know much about popular culture.



http://www.alternet.org/chomsky-america-not-pretty-sight?page=0,4


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

_Satanic power control them_


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/28/gq-film-russell-brand-seduction-tips-


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/28/gq-film-russell-brand-seduction-tips-


Nasty.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/28/gq-film-russell-brand-seduction-tips-


Ugh.

And some people are astonished that anyone would suggest he has just replaced 'women with 'politics'.


----------



## FNG (Dec 16, 2014)

Or that he has repackaged his gaunt adventurist persona  as political activist for similar self serving reasons


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 16, 2014)

No more heroes, anymore


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2014)

The more I learn about Brand, the less I like.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 16, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> _
> _
> Seriously?
> 
> ...


Tell us more about the corporate fascism please


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

think robocop


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

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.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> These are the issues Russell Brand is raising, and because his audience is growing (more people listen to him than to the media) he constitutes a threat, a threat that must be stopped.


more people listen to russell brand than to the media? 

pls tell me how this amazing thing is achieved.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 16, 2014)

That post from Diana9 is no better an example of the dead end tunnel this stuff will lead. And which gets in the way of proper grassroots organising. It's not such a big jump from that post to conspiraloonery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> That post from Diana9 is no better an example of the dead end tunnel this stuff will go. And which gets in the way of proper organising. It's not such a big jump from that post to conspiraloonery.


that post is conspiraloonery


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

it was full of wake up and listen sheeple.  Diana is a joke, not been able to take seriously since the 'whispering in the warehouses' comment. Some peculiar late 19th century view of labour there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> No more heroes, anymore



That's the way it should be.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

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.


 Hmmm... can't say I was very impressed with that (the rest of the blogpost, not the bit you quote). It makes useful points about Brand's actions being shaped by what his camera crew can capture - and also about ordinary workers getting caught up in 'actions'. But the rest of it was a pretty run of the mill defence of banking.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 16, 2014)

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.


 
that blogger is a total shit though.  i'd hesitate to use them as any sort of comment considering they are cheerleaders for tory economics.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> that blogger is a total shit though.  i'd hesitate to use them as any sort of comment considering they are cheerleaders for tory economics.


I wouldn't use this either:


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 16, 2014)

me neither.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Hmmm... can't say I was very impressed with that (the rest of the blogpost, not the bit you quote). It makes useful points about Brand's actions being shaped by what his camera crew can capture - and also about ordinary workers getting caught up in 'actions'. But the rest of it was a pretty run of the mill defence of banking.



Yeah don't really care much about his lunch or his views but didn't know RB was making a film about himself acting the revolution, shouting. The recent burst of activity makes a bit more sense now as content filler. No doubt there'll be a toy action figure and a promo tie in with that cereal café etc


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I wouldn't use this either:



Are you suggesting people on here have?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I wouldn't use this either:


Relevance?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting people on here have?


No, only that their views are in line with public opinion.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, only that their views are in line with public opinion.


Whose views? I really don't know what you're saying here or why you posted that filth.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, only that their views are in line with public opinion.


 
So, you were seeking to point out that if urbanites find Brand unfunny and a hypocrite, they have majority support?  That's what you were saying, and nothing else?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

Yes I was pointing out that most people share the view that he is a hypocrite.  I don't know whether it's true or not, but not many people here seem prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he's got an unsavoury past, dabbles in New Age mumbo-jumbo, and that the revolution doesn't need celebrity endorsement but I'm surprised at the hatred of the man shown by some here to the total exclusion of what he is trying to say about what's wrong with the world and the alternative even though they would probably agree with it.

I don't think he's funny either.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes I was pointing out that most people share the view that he is a hypocrite.  I don't know whether it's true or not, but not many people here seem prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he's got an unsavoury past, dabbles in New Age mumbo-jumbo, and that the revolution doesn't need celebrity endorsement but I'm surprised at the hatred of the man shown by some here to the total exclusion of what he is trying to say about what's wrong with the world and the alternative even though they would probably agree with it.
> 
> I don't think he's funny either.


 Slightly off piste and because I'm feeling quite generous, I'm not too worried about pushing the 'hypocrite - he's still got all of his millions' charge.  I'd accept that if any millionaire wants to start doing anti-capitalism there's no obvious ethical, consistent or easy way of doing it. Dammed if he does, dammed if doesn't type thing.  Same time, some slebs manage to donate and even occasionally get involved in things, without it being as me-me as Brand manages.  Even more so, when it comes to rich slebs falling into said _dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't_ dilemma, *well tough shit*, tough shit if he hasn't left himself any room to 'do politics' in a genuinely participatory way.  Go and deliver some leaflets, go and make the tea, go and do the real stuff of solidarity - and then come back and do your book.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> So, you were seeking to point out that if urbanites find Brand unfunny and a hypocrite, they have majority support?  That's what you were saying, and nothing else?






			
				edgar allen poe said:
			
		

> only that and nothing more


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

[QUOTE="Jean Luc" post: 13598704]I was pointing out that most people share the view that he is a hypocrite.  I don't know whether it's true or not, but not many people here seem prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he's got an unsavoury past, dabbles in New Age mumbo-jumbo, and that the revolution doesn't need celebrity endorsement but I'm surprised at the hatred of the man shown by some here to the total exclusion of what he is trying to say about what's wrong with the world and the alternative even though they would probably agree with it.

I don't think he's funny either.[/QUOTE]

You don't get it.

It's actively damaging to have someone with such credentials, a millionaire celeb at that who has made a fortune from the system he is criticising, endorsing leftist causes, espousing pseudo revolutionary rhetoric, especially because that individual has been linked to now both PUA shit and conspirKslacy theory bollocks and shown precious little sign of recanting it beyond a few half hearted denials, and even more damaging to have everyone act like it's not an issue. Like comrade delta never happened, like tommy Sheridan never happened, like none of these lessons have been learned. Exactly what kind of a message does it sent out when fucking ukip has a better policy on sexism than we sem to and anyone questioning the open armed acceptance of some rapey millionaire misogynist is attacked? And we wonder why people don't take us seriously based on our critiques of identity politics and say class is more important when we can't even apply that to ourselves?  Jesus.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/28/gq-film-russell-brand-seduction-tips-


 
"It's better to strike in the street or at the bus stop, or perhaps near a hedge."

"Seduction is an incremental war of attrition"

Jesus fuck


----------



## articul8 (Dec 16, 2014)

Smokeandsteam said:


> "It's better to strike in the street or at the bus stop, or perhaps near a hedge."


I thought to call him "rapey" was a bit of a stretch, but that is getting extremely close...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> [QUOTE="Jean Luc" post: 13598704]I was pointing out that most people share the view that he is a hypocrite.  I don't know whether it's true or not, but not many people here seem prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he's got an unsavoury past, dabbles in New Age mumbo-jumbo, and that the revolution doesn't need celebrity endorsement but I'm surprised at the hatred of the man shown by some here to the total exclusion of what he is trying to say about what's wrong with the world and the alternative even though they would probably agree with it.
> 
> I don't think he's funny either.





You don't get it.

It's actively damaging to have someone with such credentials, a millionaire celeb at that who has made a fortune from the system he is criticising, endorsing leftist causes, espousing pseudo revolutionary rhetoric, especially because that individual has been linked to now both PUA shit and conspirKslacy theory bollocks and shown precious little sign of recanting it beyond a few half hearted denials, and even more damaging to have everyone act like it's not an issue. Like comrade delta never happened, like tommy Sheridan never happened, like none of these lessons have been learned. Exactly what kind of a message does it sent out when fucking ukip has a better policy on sexism than we sem to and anyone questioning the open armed acceptance of some rapey millionaire misogynist is attacked? And we wonder why people don't take us seriously based on our critiques of identity politics and say class is more important when we can't even apply that to ourselves?  Jesus.[/QUOTE]


it has been ably demonstrated that the political classes as a whole have a real problem with these rape and 'misconduct'. From healey to galloway to cyril smith they've been at it, the party vehicle whatever its stripe gives them the space to do so.
The problem is you expect this from tories and right wingers- not all have such views but the people they voted for (labour PIE, lib dem filth..the list grows ever on)
With left wing voices, well nobody is asking for 100% purity because thats impossible. But being involved with PUA stuff, sharing space with anti-semites...sincerety is all well and good. Absolute credulous borderline shit with brand. Well. If he was really that sincere about addressing these matters he'd do so quietly and thoroughly. I see no sign of this.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

fuck knows whats going on with the quote function here, its come out mangled.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> well nobody is asking for 100% purity because thats impossible. But being involved with PUA stuff, sharing space with anti-semites...sincerety is all well and good. Absolute credulous borderline shit with brand. Well. If he was really that sincere about addressing these matters he'd do so quietly and thoroughly. I see no sign of this.


 That's exactly it.  We've all done, said and believed things we'd later regret and he's got as much leeway as the rest of us in that respect.  But if he wants to do politics, wants to make some claims, wants to reinvent himself, he can't ignore the things you mention.  Nor, for that matter can his supporters, who see to have gone a bit quiet on this thread.


----------



## benedict (Dec 16, 2014)

Looks like his upcoming feature-length documentary 'Brand' is in post-production and scheduled for a 2015 release.


> Russell Brand's spiritual and biographical journey meeting with a fascinating range of people - American Marines, Kenyan orphans, socialists and death row inmates - challenging and empowering people to stage a non-violent revolution.



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


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody is asking for 100% purity because thats impossible. But being involved with PUA stuff, sharing space with anti-semites...sincerety is all well and good. Absolute credulous borderline shit with brand. Well. If he was really that sincere about addressing these matters he'd do so quietly and thoroughly. I see no sign of this.


exactly.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> That's exactly it.  We've all done, said and believed things we'd later regret and he's got as much leeway as the rest of us in that respect.  But if he wants to do politics, wants to make some claims, wants to reinvent himself, he can't ignore the things you mention.  Nor, for that matter can his supporters, who see to have gone a bit quiet on this thread.



That's the thing. There are ex fash who become anti fash and joined afa etc, the difference is that they make a thorough, honest denunciation of their previous views. Everyone makes mistakes, that's not the point.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> With left wing voices, well nobody is asking for 100% purity because thats impossible. But being involved with PUA stuff, sharing space with anti-semites...sincerety is all well and good. Absolute credulous borderline shit with brand. Well. If he was really that sincere about addressing these matters he'd do so quietly and thoroughly. I see no sign of this.


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?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> fuck knows whats going on with the quote function here, its come out mangled.


you bust it


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> That's the thing. There are ex fash who become anti fash and joined afa etc, the difference is that they make a thorough, honest denunciation of their previous views. Everyone makes mistakes, that's not the point.




'I see you have some questionable tattoos. Here is a cheeegrater and some valium. Let me know when you are done'

while you can't expect brand the brand to remember everything and every person he met during his coke n booze phase, you can expect him to look back and recoil in horror at that 'person i once was'
not seeing much of that. And everytime you lay a righteous line about nil hour contracts or whatever the latest iniquity is some cunts going to chirp 'parklife' just after you finish talking

woop de fucking doo


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

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?




not be him basically. I don't expect left wing voices to be monks but come on.

AndI haven't once doubted his sincerity.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

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?



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...


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

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?



Who knows, but this was 2006:
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/28/gq-film-russell-brand-seduction-tips-


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2014)

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?




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

It matters whether his involvement aids or damages.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Who knows, but this was 2006:
> http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/28/gq-film-russell-brand-seduction-tips-



#2390


----------



## caleb (Dec 16, 2014)

The most damning thing is that quote on the cover of the Neil Strauss book because, yes, it makes what he says in that video look very insincere.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> #2390


 I know, that's where I plagiarised it from!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

I think the called people love thing is a bit of a red herring tbh. There's much worse we can get hom on.


----------



## caleb (Dec 16, 2014)

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.



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.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

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.


It's not about whether he called someone love or not - it's about him making a public commitment to do something then not doing it.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Who knows, but this was 2006:
> http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/28/gq-film-russell-brand-seduction-tips-



2010.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

So, are we saying he's a Poundshop Julian Assange?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> 2010.


 Looks like the piece was posted 2010, but refers to an earlier article.  Even so, he'd have still been 31 in 2006, so it can hardly be shrugged off as a youthful indiscretion.


----------



## campanula (Dec 16, 2014)

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.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

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.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

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.


 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 , 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.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> So, are we saying he's a Poundshop Julian Assange?



Poundshop Norman Wisdom.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 16, 2014)

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.



Wonder if he'll tackle Iron Mike about that rape he committed.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2014)

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?




He has spent some time with the Focus mums painting the occupation flats, etc.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 16, 2014)

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?




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.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> He has spent some time with the Focus mums painting the occupation flats, etc.


 ta.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2014)

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.



Article is by a cynical Tory and leftie baiter, though he does make some salient points.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2014)

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.




Whats Mike Tyson got to do with social change?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> Whats Mike Tyson got to do with social change?


Why -  of that list - single him out? Bit odd.

btw, in his book he thanks amstell and lists his help as being permanently fucked up on a psychedelic.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

What's Noel Gallagher got to do with social change?


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2014)

He has done a fair few benefits over the years, firefighters, steel workers, Tyson, accused of rape, that's it..


----------



## xslavearcx (Dec 16, 2014)

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.



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


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> He has done a fair few benefits over the years, firefighters, steel workers, Tyson, accused of rape, that's it..


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.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> He has done a fair few benefits over the years, firefighters, steel workers, Tyson, accused of rape, that's it..



And mates with Icke.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> What's Noel Gallagher got to do with social change?


 Some might say.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Some might say.


"David Icke is a pal of mine and I think he's cool"


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Still, I'm mildly curious as to what impact he is having outside of the commentariat.


That's more like it. He must be having some effect, on ideas if not on actual struggles. Difficult to guage of course but utopian anarchist ideas are being given an airing they don't usually get.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> That's more like it. He must be having some effect, on ideas if not on actual struggles. Difficult to guage of course but utopian anarchist ideas are being given an airing they don't usually get.


What 'utopian anarchist' ideas are getting an airing?


----------



## benedict (Dec 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> "David Icke is a pal of mine and I think he's cool"




"I like David Icke a lot. I'm into his books, I'm into his theories. I really like 'human race, get off your knees'"

Oh dear.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What 'utopian anarchist' ideas are getting an airing?



How exactly are struggles being damaged? 

Is there a way to discern this or is it only theory?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> How exactly are struggles being damaged?
> 
> Is there a way to discern this or is it only theory?


What's that got to do with my question to jean luc?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with my question to jean luc?



I posted my question as the answer to yours above is too obvious to warrant an answer. Brand's ideas are all over the trews thing he does. It hardly matters that they be utopian socialist or anarchist.

For me it is more important to fathom exactly how his association and publicity for campaigns can actually damage them. How do we measure this?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> How exactly are struggles being damaged?
> 
> Is there a way to discern this or is it only theory?



What, how does that follow?


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2014)

Genuine question, has Icke had any real influence in the world, any policy as a consequence of his worldview, I know its has weakened the left to some degree, one of my friend who really cares about people, campaigns, is a C/T to a degree, but what real impact?

or is that to come...


----------



## benedict (Dec 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> Genuine question, has Icke had any real influence in the world, any policy as a consequence of his worldview, I know its has weakened the left to some degree, one of my friend who really cares about people, campaigns, is a C/T to a degree, but what real impact?
> 
> or is that to come...



What are you talking about?


----------



## benedict (Dec 16, 2014)

Horrible objectifying here. "Imagine her head on a fat woman" 

And he's friends with Paul McKenna.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> I posted my question as the answer to yours above is too obvious to warrant an answer. Brand's ideas are all over the trews thing he does. It hardly matters that they be utopian socialist or anarchist.
> 
> For me it is more important to fathom exactly how his association and publicity for campaigns can actually damage them. How do we measure this?


Maybe you can point me to the obvious answer then. Ta.


----------



## benedict (Dec 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> Genuine question, has Icke had any real influence in the world, any policy as a consequence of his worldview, I know its has weakened the left to some degree, one of my friend who really cares about people, campaigns, is a C/T to a degree, but what real impact?
> 
> or is that to come...



Possible influence on BBC chat show guest pre-screening policy.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> What, how does that follow?



The most important criticism levelled at Brand in these threads has been that his presence or association with campaigns damages them. All the rest is anecdotal, like, can he change, should he denounce his past more, etc,. 

I want to be absolutely clear on this particular point before even considering the rest.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2014)

benedict said:


> What are you talking about?




As the question, is Ike an irritant or more?

waits for the smart arses to reframe the question.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe you can point me to the obvious answer then. Ta.



Jean Luc can answer you. I think all anti-capitalist thinking can be traced back to the utopian ideas of the late 19th century. Utopia meaning a fairer world.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> The most important criticism levelled at Brand in these threads has been that his presence or association with campaigns damages them. All the rest is anecdotal, like, can he change, should he denounce his past more, etc,.
> 
> I want to be absolutely clear on this particular point before even considering the rest.


It's not "anecdotal" that he has hung out with and voices support for Jew haters.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> The most important criticism levelled at Brand in these threads has been that his presence or association with campaigns damages them. All the rest is anecdotal, like, can he change, should he denounce his past more, etc,.
> 
> I want to be absolutely clear on this particular point before even considering the rest.



No it isn't. The most important criticism is that he's a self promoting cunt blagging it on the back of other peoples' misery and he's got some dodgy guru mates in the wings.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> Jean Luc can answer you. I think all anti-capitalist thinking can be traced back to the utopian ideas of the late 19th century. Utopia meaning a fairer world.


Utopia doesn't mean "fairer world". It means a paradise as defined by the person who says it. If i had a utopia Chelsea would win the league every year.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> What's Noel Gallagher got to do with social change?


I bet he has never looked back in anger


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 16, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> Utopia doesn't mean "fairer world". It means a paradise as defined by the person who says it. If i had a utopia Chelsea would win the league every year.



That's fair.


----------



## benedict (Dec 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> No it isn't. The most important criticism is that he's a self promoting cunt blagging it on the back of other peoples' misery and he's got some dodgy guru mates in the wings.



I think this is it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> Jean Luc can answer you. I think all anti-capitalist thinking can be traced back to the utopian ideas of the late 19th century. Utopia meaning a fairer world.


Why are you telling me this?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet he has never looked back in anger


 He fucking should.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Some might say.


and as he cussed the sun he cast no shadow


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you telling me this?



Because I am not interested in answering your question to Jean Luc. I felt it was a kind of lazy question so I am butting in and changing the subject.

What I really want to know is how exactly we can measure how Brand's involvement is detrimental to political campaigns. I direct this question to you as you have written about this theme.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> Because I am not interested in answering your question to Jean Luc. I felt it was a kind of lazy question so I am butting in and changing the subject.
> 
> What I really want to know is how exactly we can measure how Brand's involvement is detrimental to political campaigns. I direct this question to you as you have written about this theme.


  You butted into a question i asked jean luc to tell me that you're not interested in answering it? Then you post some historically incorrect nonsense at me and demand i answer a question of yours because you think i've already answered it? Are you for real?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> Because I am not interested in answering your question to Jean Luc. I felt it was a kind of lazy question so I am butting in and changing the subject.
> 
> What I really want to know is how exactly we can measure how Brand's involvement is detrimental to political campaigns. I direct this question to you as you have written about this theme.



Straight up, that's the funniest post I've seen here. I am not interested in answering your question because it was a lazy question and I am pretending to be French. Brilliant


----------



## elbows (Dec 16, 2014)

I did some semi-random youtube searching and the first thing I clicked on was this.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

elbows said:


> I did some semi-random youtube searching and the first thing I clicked on was this.




Yeah, that stuff with media, on media as the comedian, flirty extrovert, not bullying/sexist I think or is it? That's showbiz? Interesting the Paul Mckenna link though.


----------



## benedict (Dec 16, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Yeah, that stuff with media, on media as the comedian, flirty extrovert, not bullying/sexist I think or is it? That's showbiz?



Or hiding in plain sight.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 16, 2014)

benedict said:


> Or hiding in plain sight.



Poundshop Jimmy? For a new generation? Nah, that's outrageous, how dare you!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> As the question, is Ike an irritant or more?
> 
> waits for the smart arses to reframe the question.


ike's been dead for 40 years


----------



## Aduk (Dec 16, 2014)

I enjoyed Russell Brand vs Nigel Farage on Question Time the other night.

Brand was right to say it's the bankers and tax-dodging rich individuals and companies which are the main cause of our recession, not immigration like a lot of right-wing politicians and the right-wing media would have us believe.

However, it has to be acknowledged that immigration has its problems in some areas which are noticing the effects of it on public services, GP appointments, housing, schools and general integration. 

It's not racist to flag up these concerns and want to deal with them, but it's frustrating how politicians like Farage are left to misrepresent, exaggerate and paint an inaccurate picture of the pros and cons of immigration. We don't hear enough about the positives and what the true cause of our financial mess is.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What 'utopian anarchist' ideas are getting an airing?


I thought you'd never ask .

Well, this is what he writes on page 237 of his book after saying about General Motors that "we could collectivise it as a worker-owned cooperative":


> The people that run the factories, design the cars, work in the canteens, do the admin, all that (I'm not an expert, who knows what they get up to), will own and run the company. Each region will be autonomous and fully self-supporting except in matters that affect other areas of the organisation or the planet or humanity as a whole. They can democratically elect a board from the workforce who will serve for a limited time period and be kicked off if they fuck about.


He also writes,  on page 165 that


> in a devolved, collectivised, participatory democracy a small, self-determining constituency can nominate an accountable figure to act on their behalf.


and (page 189-190) about 





> a federation autonomous, interconnected collectivities led by elected jurors from the community that followed a central edict built on respecting the way of life of others and ecological responsibility.


I think these will be aims shared by even some of his severest critics here as well as by classic federalist anarchism.

He also agrees with the anarchist view that the way to get improvements under capitalism is through direct action rather than elections. And "utopian" because he envisages the sort of society he wants coming about not through class struggle (which he repudiates) but through convincing enough people of good will.

PS If you turn to page 165 of your copy of his book you will see that his definition of "liquid democracy" is not what you assumed.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> So, are we saying he's a Poundshop Julian Assange?



Iceland Icke.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I thought you'd never ask .
> 
> Well, this is what he writes on page 237 of his book after saying about General Motors that "we could collectivise it as a worker-owned cooperative":
> He also writes,  on page 165 that
> ...


If he doesn't see class struggle as the way to socialism, he's not anarchist, communist or socialist. If he thinks it comes about through everyone being better people, he's pushing liberalism, radical liberalism is pretty common these days, intersectionalism fits right in there as does the media stunt "direct action" as a tactic (the tactic actually). Ukuncut probably the best example of a group following this general path.

Not sure it's utopian either, as he's laying out practical methods of the syndicalist type.

Is William Morris utopian anarchism? That's who I thought of when I saw the phrase.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> Iceland Icke.


lidl loopy


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 17, 2014)

BigTom said:


> If he doesn't see class struggle as the way to socialism, he's not anarchist, communist or socialist. If he thinks it comes about through everyone being better people, he's pushing liberalism, radical liberalism is pretty common these days, intersectionalism fits right in there as does the media stunt "direct action" as a tactic (the tactic actually). Ukuncut probably the best example of a group following this general path.


I don't agree with your definitions of "anarchism" and "liberalism". Most anarchists accept that there have been and are people who want an anarchist (= no government) society but who reject the class struggle to get there. Tolstoy would be one example. But only some such people could be called "liberals" in wanting a free market economy with no government to intervene in it (eg the mutualists and the anarcho-capitalists). Brand does not stand for a free market economy but (reflecting the views of the people who have influenced him) for the same sort of anarcho-communist society advocated by Kropotkin or Murray Bookchin and by the AF in Britain. It is just that, unlike the AF, he doesn't see the revolution to bring this about as coming through a class struggle of the working class but through the struggle of all people of good will. Which is not the same as thinking "_it comes about through everyone be(com)ing better people" _though there is a element of this in his thinking. He's not just preaching "love" but also struggle (even if not class struggle).



BigTom said:


> Not sure it's utopian either, as he's laying out practical methods of the syndicalist type.


To a certain extent he is, but I think his emphasis is rather on community than workplace struggles (not that he rejects these). 



BigTom said:


> Is William Morris utopian anarchism? That's who I thought of when I saw the phrase.


Even though he stood for a no-state society Morris was not an anarchist. In fact he specifically repudiated the anarchists of his day. He was in fact a Marxian socialist and openly said so. This is why the title of the current exhibition of his works in London is misleading. He can only be called "utopian" in the sense that he wrote a utopian novel about an ideal future socialist society (which he envisages as coming about through class struggle and involving violence).


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> (which he envisages as coming about through class struggle and involving violence).


It baffles me that anyone thinks it could be achieved through any other method.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I thought you'd never ask .
> 
> Well, this is what he writes on page 237 of his book after saying about General Motors that "we could collectivise it as a worker-owned cooperative":
> He also writes,  on page 165 that
> ...



Ah you see, when you said 'utopian anarchist' ideas i thought you meant anarchist ideas. None of those you've quoted are actually specifically anarchist ideas - the first one for example assumes a market economy based on wage-labour - a capitalist economy, one democratised to some extent within single enterprises but still nothing anarchist there. The second one happens right now under capital and classic bourgeois democracy - it, in effect is know as lobbying. The third one is transparently not anarchist given its emphasis on authoritative centralisation and a compelling over arching and unquestionable central dictate that all other forms of social or political organisation must comply with. I note also that for the third example the way this 'federation autonomous, interconnected collectivities led by elected jurors from the community that followed a central edict built on respecting the way of life of others and ecological responsibility' is to come about is by Obama standing down and asking Brand to be president then Brand dissolving the union.

This is not anarchism as understood by Kropotkin, Bookchin and certainly not the AF. 

It might well fit in with the SPGB's long standing liberal misinterpretations of what anarchism actually is - you lot still think it's Sir Herbert read and the nice rather decent types of the maturing period of your parties development.

Utopian doesn't mean what you seem to think it does when used politically like this either ("convincing enough people of good will.") - it means people who build ideal societies of the future today rather than concentrating on the seeds of the new world in the shell of the old - i.e ongoing political activity dealing with current problems whose solution points to moving beyond current conditions rather than drawing up plans for lemonade seas. And this is why Morris was actually partially a utopianist too - given his many decades work on precisely such plans.

As for liquid democracy - the way Brand specifically uses it even more reactionary than bog standard classic democracy. It involves giving your vote (and he doesn't note the whole current electoral and economic system would have to largely remain in place) to someone that you trust more than yourself - i.e you can give/sell your vote to those more powerful than you:



> “From a technological standpoint,” writes DeGraw, “we are ready for ‘Liquid Democracy’; with Liquid Democracy you can designate your vote on any issue to any person of your choice. For example, if there is an economic policy that is coming up for a vote, but you don’t understand the policy that well, you can give your vote to someone you trust who does understand the policy. With the level of technology that we now have, that’s a common-sense sensible political system that would provide a vibrant democracy and legitimately reflect the will of the people.”



That's really quite sickening.

All these things are simply listings of _organisational_ answers to what are _political_ questions - and the political questions are ignored.  Hence him going on about referenda in Switzerland rather than the highly developed capitalism that is really rather quite important.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 17, 2014)

benedict said:


> Horrible objectifying here. "Imagine her head on a fat woman"
> 
> And he's friends with Paul McKenna.



That really is horrible stuff.  His delivery is witty and fast, there's some predictable 'irony' in there if he wants to defend himself from accusations - but the bottom line is just plain, crude misogyny. Politically, there's a bit of me that isn't too worried that he's now focused on revolution, but at a personal level he's just a common or garden shit.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> It baffles me that anyone thinks it could be achieved through any other method.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> That really is horrible stuff.  His delivery is witty and fast, there's some predictable 'irony' in there if he wants to defend himself from accusations - but the bottom line is just plain, crude misogyny. Politically, there's a bit of me that isn't too worried that he's now focused on revolution, but at a personal level he's just a common or garden shit.



i must be sicker than i thought i was. it made me laugh. having not seen much of rb's comedy i don't know if that is a big part of his material. he was funnier in that small clip than any of michael mcintyre's material i have seen. though, in fairness, this thread is about his political persona, not his comic one.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't agree with your definitions of "anarchism" and "liberalism". Most anarchists accept that there have been and are people who want an anarchist (= no government) society but who reject the class struggle to get there. Tolstoy would be one example. But only some such people could be called "liberals" in wanting a free market economy with no government to intervene in it (eg the mutualists and the anarcho-capitalists). Brand does not stand for a free market economy but (reflecting the views of the people who have influenced him) for the same sort of anarcho-communist society advocated by Kropotkin or Murray Bookchin and by the AF in Britain. It is just that, unlike the AF, he doesn't see the revolution to bring this about as coming through a class struggle of the working class but through the struggle of all people of good will. Which is not the same as thinking "_it comes about through everyone be(com)ing better people" _though there is a element of this in his thinking. He's not just preaching "love" but also struggle (even if not class struggle).



Fair, although personally I see class struggle as an inherent part of anarchism (= no heirarchy, rather than no govt, imo). I've never read Tolstoy and tbh can't think of Anarchists who don't see anarchism coming about through class struggle (Except maybe those who see it coming about through complete collapse of society due to environment or war), but that's no doubt down to my limited reading of anarchists, rather than any reality.

I don't think that liberalism is neccessarily in favour of free market, though it usually is and certainly lends itself to that way of thinking. To me liberalism is political philosophy centred around the individual and agency, rather than community and structure, for it's explanations of society / methods & tactics for change. Radical liberalism rejects the free market and advocates govt and community intervention, often people appear as socialists and advocate replacing capitalism with socialism, but it's all centred around the individual and individual behaviour, rather than structural analyses, so for ukuncut, tax avoidance is about individual companies taking advantage of loopholes (and Dave Hartnett) to increase profits, it doesn't even start to examine how the nature of profit seeking in capitalism produces tax avoidance & loopholes, and actually often ends up as reformist as a result, rather than revolutionary.

I accept that I've misunderstood the bit about being better people, he's advocating more of a spiritual thing is he? Like if we all want things to be nicer then they'll get nicer, but that airy-fairy nonsense being backed by more practical suggestions for action?



> To a certain extent he is, but I think his emphasis is rather on community than workplace struggles (not that he rejects these).
> 
> Even though he stood for a no-state society Morris was not an anarchist. In fact he specifically repudiated the anarchists of his day. He was in fact a Marxian socialist and openly said so. This is why the title of the current exhibition of his works in London is misleading. He can only be called "utopian" in the sense that he wrote a utopian novel about an ideal future socialist society (which he envisages as coming about through class struggle and involving violence).



I've only read news from nowhere, nothing wider of Morris, was definitely a utopian novel in that it presented a complete working socialism without examining potential problems or how we get from here to there. Not anarchist though, fair enough, although the society he was imagining was, in my mind, anarchist (no heirarchies or govt iirc, just individuals wandering around in an autonomist fashion, lending their help where needed and getting food/shelter from people as they pass through places).
That's a different definition of utopia than what Butcher's is using though, so some care needed here, as I'm thinking about utopia/dystopia from sci-fi novels and what the words mean there, in terms of an imagination of a future perfect/disastrous society.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is not anarchism as understood by Kropotkin, Bookchin and certainly not the AF.


Actually I agree with you that an economy of worker-owned co-operatives would not be socialist/communist but it's a popular anarchist view (even the mainstream view in Spain and France where anarcho-communism is not very popular and of the Maurice Brinton mentioned earlier on this thread whose books are not sold at Sainsburys while Brand's is) but Brand does not actually say whether or not a money economy (with markets and wage-labour) will continue to exist in the post-revolution society he envisages. I expect that like most anarchists he's confused on the point seeing whether or not to retain money as one option after the revolution.

I still say, though, that the idea of the world being a federation of self-administering communities is a basic anarchist concept espoused by Kropotkin, Bookchin and the AF.  The "central edict" bit comes in to deal with the question of what happens if one of these self-administering communities wants to discriminate against women, gays or practice FGM. But that's a problem for those who argue that local or regional communities should have "autonomy".



butchersapron said:


> Utopian doesn't mean what you seem to think it does when used politically like this either ("convincing enough people of good will.") - it means people who build ideal societies of the future today rather than concentrating on the seeds of the new world in the shell of the old - i.e ongoing political activity dealing with current problems whose solution points to moving beyond current conditions rather than drawing up plans for lemonade seas. And this is why Morris was actually partially a utopianist too - given his many decades work on precisely such plans.


I was using "utopian" in the sense Engels did in the title of his pamphlet _Socialism Utopian and Scientific_ in which he labelled Robert Owen for instance as one for not seeing socialism as the outcome of the class struggle between the working class and the capitalist class.

We can (and probably should) argue about Morris on a separate thread but, for the record, he did not spend "many decades" on drawing up a blueprint for future society (if only because he was only a socialist for the last decade of his life, from 1884 to 1896). He was in fact a "millionaire celeb" who did what you say Brand should be doing: being an activist on the ground (in his case writing leaflets and pamphlets, editing a weekly paper, lecturing and speaking on street corners about the need for a socialist revolution).



butchersapron said:


> As for liquid democracy - the way Brand specifically uses it even more reactionary than bog standard classic democracy. It involves giving your vote (and he doesn't note the whole current electoral and economic system would have to largely remain in place) to someone that you trust more than yourself - i.e you can give/sell your vote to those more powerful than you


I don't like the term. I prefer "delegate democracy". But are you saying that nobody should ever vote for a delegate to act on their behalf? In that case, you really would be an anarchist but of the individualist variety. One of the reasons, incidentally, why Morris was opposed to anarchists in addition to their bomb-throwing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes I was pointing out that most people share the view that he is a hypocrite.  I don't know whether it's true or not, but not many people here seem prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he's got an unsavoury past, dabbles in New Age mumbo-jumbo, and that the revolution doesn't need celebrity endorsement but I'm surprised at the hatred of the man shown by some here to the total exclusion of what he is trying to say about what's wrong with the world and the alternative even though they would probably agree with it.
> 
> I don't think he's funny either.



"Hatred"?
Concern about the effect he could have on the causes he supports, yes.
Distaste at the shambolic, inchoate state of his calls for revolution, yes.
Worry that the media can and will tar all revolutionary politics with the same brush as Brand's, yes.
But "hatred"? Only a dick would see the above and call it hatred.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2014)

chilango said:


> It doesn't really matter whether he's "sincere" or not.
> 
> It matters whether his involvement aids or damages.



It's amazing how many people don't "get" this one simple fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2014)

caleb said:


> The most damning thing is that quote on the cover of the Neil Strauss book because, yes, it makes what he says in that video look very insincere.



TBF, I'm not going to judge a bloke by a quote on a book cover, if only because those quotes are almost always stripped from a larger conversation, and are used shorn of the original context.
It has to be said, though, that the quote does resonate with both Brand's behaviour and his utterances of the time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> That's more like it. He must be having some effect, on ideas if not on actual struggles. Difficult to guage of course but utopian anarchist ideas are being given an airing they don't usually get.



Utopian, perhaps, but "anarchist"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't agree with your definitions of "anarchism" and "liberalism". Most anarchists accept that there have been and are people who want an anarchist (= no government) society but who reject the class struggle to get there. Tolstoy would be one example. But only some such people could be called "liberals" in wanting a free market economy with no government to intervene in it (eg the mutualists and the anarcho-capitalists). Brand does not stand for a free market economy but (reflecting the views of the people who have influenced him) for the same sort of anarcho-communist society advocated by Kropotkin or Murray Bookchin and by the AF in Britain. It is just that, unlike the AF, he doesn't see the revolution to bring this about as coming through a class struggle of the working class but through the struggle of all people of good will. Which is not the same as thinking "_it comes about through everyone be(com)ing better people" _though there is a element of this in his thinking. He's not just preaching "love" but also struggle (even if not class struggle).
> 
> To a certain extent he is, but I think his emphasis is rather on community than workplace struggles (not that he rejects these).
> 
> Even though he stood for a no-state society Morris was not an anarchist. In fact he specifically repudiated the anarchists of his day. He was in fact a Marxian socialist and openly said so. This is why the title of the current exhibition of his works in London is misleading. He can only be called "utopian" in the sense that he wrote a utopian novel about an ideal future socialist society (which he envisages as coming about through class struggle and involving violence).



It's always nice when someone who isn't an anarchist tells anarchists about anarchism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> It baffles me that anyone thinks it could be achieved through any other method.



Well, quite. It's hardly as if the ruling classes and their apparatus are going to sit still for change that would dis-empower them, is it?  I doubt that "the people" would start a "hot" class war (as opposed to the "cold war" we've had for decades/centuries), but I'm fairly certain we'd finish it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's always nice when someone who isn't an anarchist tells anarchists about anarchism.



It's quite anarchic, in a way


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I still say, though, that the idea of the world being a federation of self-administering communities is a basic anarchist concept espoused by Kropotkin, Bookchin and the AF.



The idea pre-dates Kropotkin by a couple of centuries. It's a form of civic syndicalism.  



> The "central edict" bit comes in to deal with the question of what happens if one of these self-administering communities wants to discriminate against women, gays or practice FGM. But that's a problem for those who argue that local or regional communities should have "autonomy".



As opposed to being governed by a vanguard of members of political class who will construct a top-down apparatus that can enforce non-discrimination,, you mean?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 17, 2014)

Aduk said:


> I enjoyed Russell Brand vs Nigel Farage on Question Time the other night.
> 
> Brand was right to say it's the bankers and tax-dodging rich individuals and companies which are the main cause of our recession, not immigration like a lot of right-wing politicians and the right-wing media would have us believe.
> 
> ...




I expected more of a verbal punch up on Question Time so was a bit disappointed with the result. I thought the panel, despite the supposed heavy weights, wasn't up to much.

Who else in the UK could have been on instead of Brand to counter the right wingers on the show?

The blue haired woman who heckled made me angry when she interrupted an audience member in mid question by screaming "racist", trying to impose censorship on a question as if she had the right to do so. What's more typical is she didn't even listen to the context of the question before she knee jerked. She obviously equates ukip with the bnp which is a mistake as ukip's support is coming from a wide section of society who aren't all racists but who perceive mass immigration as something that has brought too much change too fast. The figures given on the show were a rise in population of 8 million in the last 25 years. It's probably more as millions of brits have moved abroad.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 17, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> The blue haired woman who heckled .


 
SWPer according to Twitter.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 17, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> She obviously equates ukip with the bnp which is a mistake as ukip's support is coming from a wide section of society who aren't all racists but who perceive mass immigration as something that has brought too much change too fast. The figures given on the show were a rise in population of 8 million in the last 25 years. It's probably more as millions of brits have moved abroad.



The areas with the strongest UKIP support tend to be areas with the least immigration.  It's as much the perception of problems with immigration rather than experience of problems with immigration, and a willingness to use immigrants as an easy target to blame.

I think there's a graph somewhere on the UKIP thread showing a breakdown of UKIP supporters by social group (or whatever category they use) - tends to be a mix of well off and WC, mostly older and white.  An unusual distribution, but not really a 'wide section'.


Regarding Question Time:  Brand just had things he was waiting to say rather than actually participate in anything resembling a debate.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 17, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> I expected more of a verbal punch up on Question Time so was a bit disappointed with the result. I thought the panel, despite the supposed heavy weights, wasn't up to much.
> 
> Who else in the UK could have been on instead of Brand to counter the right wingers on the show?
> 
> The blue haired woman who heckled made me angry when she interrupted an audience member in mid question by screaming "racist", trying to impose censorship on a question as if she had the right to do so. What's more typical is she didn't even listen to the context of the question before she knee jerked. She obviously equates ukip with the bnp which is a mistake as ukip's support is coming from a wide section of society who aren't all racists but who perceive mass immigration as something that has brought too much change too fast. The figures given on the show were a rise in population of 8 million in the last 25 years. It's probably more as millions of brits have moved abroad.



What annoyed me most about that figure is it's a rise of about 14% which over 25 years really isn't that much, but Farage called it a "massive, massive rise" and nobody challenged him on whether 14% over 25 years is actually massive, or in fact a very manageable number.
It doesn't matter about emigration, because he was talking about population rise figure, not immigration figure - he's right that the rise has come almost or entirely from immigration though, as the natural birth rate of the UK has been at or below replacement rate for most or all of that time period.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 17, 2014)

Birthrate can still be below replacement rate yet the population still grow due to extended lifespans.

Immigrants generally turn up on our shores with all those expensive years (birth, education) already paid for and out of the way, so the idea of them as a burden is a bit preposterous, it's more of a loss to the country of origin.  The idea that we live in a country where there isn't enough to go round is a load of shit, we're awash with wealth, go and stand by a road and count the value of cars that pass you in a few minutes.  It's a choice not to share resources fairly, not a necessity.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 17, 2014)

Aduk said:


> However, it has to be acknowledged that immigration has its problems in some areas which are noticing the effects of it on public services, GP appointments, housing, schools and general integration.
> 
> It's not racist to flag up these concerns and want to deal with them,


What (since we've started to discuss this) is it, then? Except for "general integration" these are all problems that are aggravated by _any_ increase in population somewhere or by migration from one part of the British Isles to another. As also by capitalism not giving, and not being able to give, priority to services for the majority because its priority is profits and profit-making. This is conceding too much ground to the current anti-immigration hysteria.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As opposed to being governed by a vanguard of members of political class who will construct a top-down apparatus that can enforce non-discrimination,, you mean?


This might be the view of some here but it's not mine. I couldn't be more opposed to trotskyism/leninism/vanguardism.

But if Brand's idea of a future society can't be described as anarchism what can it be described as?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> This might be the view of some here but it's not mine. I couldn't be more opposed to trotskyism/leninism/vanguardism.
> 
> But if Brand's idea of a future society can't be described as anarchism what can it be described as?



As I said above, a form of civic syndicalism at best.  Given that his ideas appear to be about accommodating some form of capitalism, he comes across as wanting a less boring Switzerland.


----------



## Zabo (Dec 17, 2014)

There are lots of purists on here. They can hit you with any theory you want at any time you want. In fact some of them would do well to advise Russell Brand and tell him where he's going right or wrong. That would keep him - and them - quiet for a few years!

I'm personally not bothered about the disparaging side shows including the crap pedalled by the media, bloggers, twitters et al,. I don't give a stuff what the Huff' thinks nor the garbage spewed out by the Fail. They don't matter, they are predictable. Their axe is well worn.

If nothing else, Brand is raising agendas that are getting people to think. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not but to get some if not many youngsters thinking about the corrupt system we have has got to be positive. I'm not bothered about his celebrity status or who he has slept with or any other trivia. What do you want, a Jesus Christ figure with all the answers?

I'm not going to append an 'ism' or 'ist' to Brand - that is just so dated. I'll listen to Brand's arguments without being coloured by whatever celebrity status he has and measure each one on its merit. It's either that or listen to the Party shit pedalled day after day by the usual criminals. You know, the ones who don't lead but wait for the media to tell them what the populace are thinking or getting angry about. Such is their integrity and sincerity. Without exception they are bereft of original ideas.

More power to those who think and dissent from the _status quo_.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 17, 2014)

Zabo said:


> I'll listen to Brand's arguments without being coloured by whatever celebrity status he has and measure each one on its merit. It's either that or listen to the Party shit pedalled day after day by the usual criminals.



It really isn't just that.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 17, 2014)

had this as a reply when i've pointed out the dodgyness of the brand 



> what should we do with the miscreant ..?? I'm assuming that you know him personally ...to be able to judge him so succinctly.... so some sort of re-education camp... ?? get his attitude into line with yours... ??...or 'not needed'.. ( a bit sinister ?) so what the firing squad... ??



then i tried


> Do you think those with dodgy attitudes to women and connections with anti semites are good for 'our side' then? Do you know him personally and fully trust his intentions?


and got!


> I don't see any evidence of 'dodgy attitudes' or antisemitism ( unless you mean antizionism ) ...shall we judge him by his associates ...??...no don't know him at all... but I'm a good 'judge' of character... I'd sit down for a beer with the man... and am 99% sur we'd get on and have loads of ideas and aims in common... 'our side' ... are you sure you and me are on the same one..?...;<))


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2014)

So brands creepy sexism mean nothing to you then? Good.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 17, 2014)

I think the creepy sexism is some kind of ingrained alpha male bullshit.  He seems apologetic about it and says he wants to change, maybe with some sincerity, but it definitely is something he needs to concentrate on a lot more, and maybe atone for a little more too.  He doesn't get a free pass on this just for being right about a few other things.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 17, 2014)

> I'm a good 'judge' of character



Sure sign of a dupe


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said above, a form of civic syndicalism at best.  Given that his ideas appear to be about accommodating some form of capitalism, he comes across as wanting a less boring Switzerland.


That should be easy ! But you are wrong. Brand's concept of a post-revolution society is rather more radical than that.  This from Chapter 29 of his book:


> ... the answer to the question 'What would this Revolution look like?' begins to emerge. It is defined and achieved by a sustained, mass-supported attack on the hegemony of corporations and the regulations that allow them to dominate us. It is the radical decentralisation of power, whether private or state. It is the return of power to us the people at the level of the community (....)
> Economics is at the heart of our nation-state philosophy. The nation state may have served its purpose and have to be dissolved (...)
> State power to dissolve wherever possible to empower autonomous, democratic communities (...)
> ... the structures that elevate, rarefy or in any way concentrate power have to themselves be eradicated. There is no heroic revolutionary figure in whom we can invest hope, except for ourselves as individuals, together.(...)
> Capitalism isn't irreducible and absolute; depletion of earth's resources due to the free market is. Do we ditch capitalism or the planet? We can't have both. Obviously we know capitalism has to go, everyone does, especially the elites that benefit from it most. They know that the majority of people could benefit from radical change and the implementation of the type of systems we have been discussing. This means they do two things.: they disparage our viable alternatives to prevent us pursuing them actively and collectively; and, in the event that their propaganda and distractions don't work, they are prepared for confrontation. They are prepared for activism, protest and moaning. They aren't prepared for Revolution.


Ok, maybe he hasn't thought through all the implications of what he's advocating but the "radical change" he envisages is a lot more than a "less boring Switzerland".

You can't have it both ways. Either he's advocating the same sort of change as you and his unsavoury past antics are discrediting that or he is only advocating some reform to the structures of capitalism and the state; in which case that's what his past would be discrediting.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> You can't have it both ways. Either he's advocating the same sort of change as you and his unsavoury past antics are discrediting that or he is only advocating some reform to the structures of capitalism and the state; in which case that's what his past would be discrediting.



Bollocks.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2014)

It's bizarre that the SPGB think Brand can do no wrong but yet they can't stop slagging off Podemos. Weirdos


----------



## Aduk (Dec 17, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> I expected more of a verbal punch up on Question Time so was a bit disappointed with the result. I thought the panel, despite the supposed heavy weights, wasn't up to much.
> 
> Who else in the UK could have been on instead of Brand to counter the right wingers on the show?
> 
> The blue haired woman who heckled made me angry when she interrupted an audience member in mid question by screaming "racist", trying to impose censorship on a question as if she had the right to do so. What's more typical is she didn't even listen to the context of the question before she knee jerked. She obviously equates ukip with the bnp which is a mistake as ukip's support is coming from a wide section of society who aren't all racists but who perceive mass immigration as something that has brought too much change too fast. The figures given on the show were a rise in population of 8 million in the last 25 years. It's probably more as millions of brits have moved abroad.



I thought it was the best Question Time for a while for entertainment but it didn't get us very far. Two panellists with totally different views contributed to an incredibly polarised debate. It was nice to hear some common sense and balance from Camilla Cavendish. 

The blue haired woman was a disgrace tbh. She had no respect for the views of others who DO have legitimate concerns about immigration. It's people like her who play into UKIP's hands and give the left its 'loony' tag. 

I agree with you that UKIP are nothing like BNP. I hear it all the time from people. The HUGE difference is that UKIP's policies aren't based on a hatred towards one particular race and nor do Nigel Farage and his party advocate putting a stop to all immigration. You also don't hear him denying the holocaust. It's ludicrous to compare them if you ask me. 

Don't get me wrong though, I'm no fan of UKIP, but they're a symptom of a disillusioned public fed up with the political elite and their feeling that the main two parties are doing nothing about immigration or our relationship with the EU. It's up to the main parties to try and vacate that vacuum which UKIP have made their own.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 17, 2014)

Aduk said:


> I thought it was the best Question Time for a while for entertainment but it didn't get us very far. Two panellists with totally different views contributed to an incredibly polarised debate. It was nice to hear some common sense and balance from Camilla Cavendish.
> 
> The blue haired woman was a disgrace tbh. She had no respect for the views of others who DO have legitimate concerns about immigration. It's people like her who play into UKIP's hands and give the left its 'loony' tag.
> 
> ...



Bollocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It's bizarre that the SPGB think Brand can do no wrong but yet they can't stop slagging off Podemos. Weirdos


Same as when they were sniffing around the zeitgeist clowns. Because they have no idea of what popular culture is.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Bollocks.



Which bit is bollocks? Do you think that the womann shouting racist at UKIP supporters/Farage is an effective method of counteracting UKIP's influence?


----------



## Aduk (Dec 17, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Bollocks.



Explain?


----------



## elbows (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> That should be easy ! But you are wrong. Brand's concept of a post-revolution society is rather more radical than that.  This from Chapter 29 of his book:



Is there much in there about how the destruction of capitalism comes about? Because just going by the bits you quoted, there is a bit of a leap. He starts off with stuff about destroying corporations and regulations, which is potentially a wet dream for little capitalists and libertarians if it's not done in concert with a lot of other things. Obviously by later going on about free market vs planet, and communities, the libertarian erection would quickly go limp when exposed to his words. But even so it is hard for me to judge from the bits you posted as to whether he has considered what other forces need to be dealt with during a period where new ways can be built in the face of the collapse or destruction of old structures and concentrations of power.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2014)

The real problem with left-wing politics is that we don't have enough people with subcultural hairstyles shouting 'racist' at people. We need increasing numbers of these people to reach a critical mass and then UKIP will be destroyed


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 17, 2014)

elbows said:


> But even so it is hard for me to judge from the bits you posted as to whether he has considered what other forces need to be dealt with during a period where new ways can be built in the face of the collapse or destruction of old structures and concentrations of power.


Probably best to read the book yourself (but be warned there's lots about him and himself). As far as I can see, he sees capitalism and the state being ended by a non-violent mass movement taking direct, extra-parliamentary action but I agree with you. I don't think he has thought through all the implications and problems of how to get from here to there. But here's one more passage from the book for you to make a judgement:


> The Revolution that most decent folk are into, including George Orwell, who join in with it and Noam Chomsky, is the Spanish Revolution of 1936. In this recent uprising there is much that will be of use to us, and although it eventually ended up being crushed by the fascists, let's optimistically assume that there is no modern-day equivalent of the Nazis who lent Franco's triumphant army military hardware that ensured his victory. (...)
> Orwell saw this brief period in Spanish history as a potential template for an alternative future. Ordinary workers took over their businesses and factories, and ran them democratically. Naturally, they were brutally massacred by a multitude of enemies - the fascists, communists and liberal democracies all coiled about them in a terrified asphyxiating clench. (...)
> A lot of other political struggles and social uprisings labelled 'revolutions' are in my mind unworthy of the term, in that they were simply a hegemonic exchange. Whether it's the Russian Revolution, which led to Stalinism, or the American Revolution that led to corporate oligarchy. The Revolution we advocate ought to have two irrefutable components: 1) non-violence, and 2) the radical improvement of the quality of life for ordinary people.


Make what you will of this but is certainly not a "less boring Switzerland".

Despite J Ed says, I don't think that Brand can do no wrong. After all I'm not an anarchist nor an anarcho-syndicalist (actually opinion on him in the SPGB is as divided as here). It's rather that there are people here who think he can do no right and are playing the man not the ball.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 17, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Bollocks.



?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> The real problem with left-wing politics is that we don't have enough people with subcultural hairstyles shouting 'racist' at people. We need increasing numbers of these people to reach a critical mass and then UKIP will be destroyed


i'm not sure you've grasped that the relationship between haircut and political views doesn't exist


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2014)

oic


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not sure you've grasped that the relationship between haircut and political views doesn't exist


Not true.

Laurie Penny on hair: Why patriarchy fears the scissors - for women, short hair is a political statement


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 17, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not sure you've grasped that the relationship between haircut and political views doesn't exist


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2014)

copliker said:


> Not true.
> 
> Laurie Penny on hair: Why patriarchy fears the scissors - for women, short hair is a political statement


i am surprised by your reliance on penny dreadful, building a house on sand there. is short hair subcultural?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Because they have no idea of what popular culture is.


What is it?


----------



## elbows (Dec 17, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Probably best to read the book yourself (but be warned there's lots about him and himself). As far as I can see, he sees capitalism and the state being ended by a non-violent mass movement taking direct, extra-parliamentary action but I agree with you. I don't think he has thought through all the implications and problems of how to get from here to there. But here's one more passage from the book for you to make a judgement:



Thanks for the additional quotes. I suspect he hasn't read Pacifism and the War by Orwell, a piece that is certainly nowhere near beyond criticism itself and is written for a very specific context, but should probably be pondered on by those who imagine that the path of non-violent resistance is an easy one to pave and illuminate. The relationship of violence to self-defence was certainly on display in different ways during various arab spring uprisings. Yes the requirement for certain forms of necessary violence/defensive action can be glossed over if a revolutionary event of sufficient width and depth is anticipated, but even with safety in numbers, a broad cross-section of society involved, and unavoidable momentum towards change at hand, violent power plays should still be expected and guarded against.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Worry that the media can and will tar all revolutionary politics with the same brush as Brand's, yes.



Yep:






OK It's the Daily Star but this is precisely why he's harmful I think. He's far too easy a target.


----------



## FNG (Dec 18, 2014)

makes some good points, and i prefer his analysis to the tubthumping of Desmonds jingoistic cheering on of every dronestrike and military reprisal.

  but why's he doing that Lady Di thing of half covering his hair?

Edit removed some stuff about imran khan not pertinent to issue


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 18, 2014)

channel 4 will have him do the alternate christmas speech. You know the one they stick on instead of the parasites rant. bet you a fiver


----------



## coley (Dec 18, 2014)

FNG said:


> makes some good points, and i prefer his analysis to the tubthumping of Desmonds jingoistic cheering on of every dronestrike and military reprisal.
> 
> but why's he doing that Lady Di thing of half covering his hair?
> 
> Edit removed some stuff about imran khan not pertinent to issue




How can you take somebody sitting on a bed with a towel draped over his head seriously?
Just a re hash of many views floating around anyway.


----------



## killer b (Dec 18, 2014)

Who gives a fuck how he's dressed? FFS.

Anyway, it's interesting that he claims ignorance of a political situation that he's surely very familiar with, as his recently ex-Mrs is the ex of the opposition leader he speaks of so approvingly. Considering one of the things he bangs on about is the hidden (and not so hidden) links between the powerful, you'd have thought he'd declare his interest rather than playing dumb.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> Who gives a fuck how he's dressed? FFS.
> 
> Anyway, it's interesting that he claims ignorance of a political situation that he's surely very familiar with, as his recently ex-Mrs is the ex of the opposition leader he speaks of so approvingly. Considering one of the things he bangs on about is the hidden (and not so hidden) links between the powerful, you'd have thought he'd declare his interest rather than playing dumb.


i'm not sure he's playing


----------



## rekil (Dec 18, 2014)

Katy Perry's ISI and Jamaat-e-Islami links definitely need to be exposed on the _trews._


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2014)

copliker said:


> Katy Perry's ISI and Jamaat-e-Islami links definitely need to be exposed on the _trews._


not katy perry too 

her new song will be 'i kissed a jihadi (and i liked it)'


----------



## rekil (Dec 18, 2014)

Now all of her tunes have to be re-examined and deconstructed. They could be chockablock with terror.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 18, 2014)

so katy perry is a deniable asset for pakistani intelligence services now? this christmas is shaping up to be a weird one


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2014)

copliker said:


> Now all of her tunes have to be re-examined and deconstructed. They could be chockablock with terror.


play them backwards to find the real hidden messages.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> That should be easy ! But you are wrong. Brand's concept of a post-revolution society is rather more radical than that.  This from Chapter 29 of his book:
> Ok, maybe he hasn't thought through all the implications of what he's advocating but the "radical change" he envisages is a lot more than a "less boring Switzerland".
> 
> You can't have it both ways. Either he's advocating the same sort of change as you and his unsavoury past antics are discrediting that or he is only advocating some reform to the structures of capitalism and the state; in which case that's what his past would be discrediting.



If we unpack what Mr. Brand is saying when he writes, we get:
_... the answer to the question 'What would this Revolution look like?' begins to emerge. It is defined and achieved by a sustained, mass-supported attack on the hegemony of corporations and the regulations that allow them to dominate us. It is the radical decentralisation of power, whether private or state. It is the return of power to us the people at the level of the community (....)
Economics is at the heart of our nation-state philosophy. The nation state may have served its purpose and have to be dissolved (...)
State power to dissolve wherever possible to empower autonomous, democratic communities (...)[/quote]_

"The people should rebel against big business because of their power over us, and take power for themselves as communities".
No definition of community. The single biggest foundation of Brand's supposedly-anarchist revolutionary ideas, and he doesn't define it, except as "not the nation-state".



> _... the structures that elevate, rarefy or in any way concentrate power have to themselves be eradicated. There is no heroic revolutionary figure in whom we can invest hope, except for ourselves as individuals, together.(...) _




"Dismantle the current system".
Something that not only anarchists are interested in. Aren't most revolutionary communists also interested in this?



> _Capitalism isn't irreducible and absolute; depletion of earth's resources due to the free market is. Do we ditch capitalism or the planet? We can't have both. Obviously we know capitalism has to go, everyone does, especially the elites that benefit from it most. They know that the majority of people could benefit from radical change and the implementation of the type of systems we have been discussing. This means they do two things.: they disparage our viable alternatives to prevent us pursuing them actively and collectively; and, in the event that their propaganda and distractions don't work, they are prepared for confrontation. They are prepared for activism, protest and moaning. They aren't prepared for Revolution._




"Capitalism is antithetical to continued life on Earth, but the beneficiaries of capitalism don't want us to notice, so they distract us, but they're not prepared for revolutionary action".
What sort of revolution? Isn't he aware that revolutionary action can be built from actual grassroots activism of the "protest" kind?

I/m sorry, Jean-Luc, but if you believe the above encapsulates much of anarchist ideology, then you're way too indoctrinated by your own sect's beliefs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It's bizarre that the SPGB think Brand can do no wrong but yet they can't stop slagging off Podemos. Weirdos



It's the speebs. You should *expect* contradiction and weirdness.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2014)

Aduk said:


> Explain?



They come in pairs (unless you're Adolf Hitler) and reside in scrotums.


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Which bit is bollocks? Do you think that the womann shouting racist at UKIP supporters/Farage is an effective method of counteracting UKIP's influence?




anyone know who she was, SWP, other?


----------



## coley (Dec 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It's bizarre that the SPGB think Brand can do no wrong but yet they can't stop slagging off Podemos. Weirdos



Wonder if Brand sees himself as the UKs version of Pablo inglesias?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 18, 2014)

no, thats owen jones again


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2014)

> The Revolution that most decent folk are into, including George Orwell, who join in with it and Noam Chomsky, is the Spanish Revolution of 1936. In this recent uprising there is much that will be of use to us, and although it eventually ended up being crushed by the fascists, *let's optimistically assume that there is no modern-day equivalent of the Nazis who lent Franco's triumphant army military hardware that ensured his victory.* (...)





> Special Branch at Croydon monitored all international flights. They may have known that this was no joy ride. Major Pollard was an experienced MI6 officer, Spanish-speaking and with firearms expertise. He had worked under journalistic cover in Ireland, Mexico and Morocco. His superiors in the intelligence services probably had a fair idea of his object in flying to the Canary Islands. The commander of the Spanish garrison there was one General Francisco Franco, whom the Spanish Republic had sent there some months before to keep him out of the way. Franco already had a reputation for his part in suppressing the Asturian miners, and his hostility to the Republic. Had a Spanish plane landed in the Canaries the authorities might have been alerted, but the British flight didn't arouse suspicion.
> The plane flew Franco and right-wing conspirator Emilio Mola to Tetuan in Spanish Morocco. On July 18, 1936, some Spanish generals announced a coup against the elected Socialist government. Franco arrived in Morocco the following day to raise support from Spain's African army.
> 
> http://randompottins.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/british-friends-of-franco.html



or an imperial power, the British, using Falange sympathisers, flew Franco to Tetuan in Spanish Morocco to begin the civil war

and the policy of 'non-intervention'


----------



## J Ed (Dec 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> no, thats owen jones again



OJ wishes he was


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2014)

if russell brand so keen on revolution you'd think he would make his book freely available on the internet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2014)

elbows said:


> Is there much in there about how the destruction of capitalism comes about? Because just going by the bits you quoted, there is a bit of a leap. He starts off with stuff about destroying corporations and regulations, which is potentially a wet dream for little capitalists and libertarians if it's not done in concert with a lot of other things. Obviously by later going on about free market vs planet, and communities, the libertarian erection would quickly go limp when exposed to his words. But even so it is hard for me to judge from the bits you posted as to whether he has considered what other forces need to be dealt with during a period where new ways can be built in the face of the collapse or destruction of old structures and concentrations of power.



This is my problem with both the book and Mr. Brand's pronouncements - there's no meat to the bones, just waftiness around "revolution". He elucidates the problems well enough, but offers no solutions bar vague utterances about "community".


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if russell brand so keen on revolution you'd think he would make his book freely available on the internet.


 
I thought he did for a limited period before the official launch, and that you can still find it tucked away in a few corners of tinternet. 

Using the profits for helping out grassroots causes seems reasonable in any case.


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> anyone know who she was, SWP, other?


Bunny la Roche.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2014)

blah, blah, blah.

nothing will come of considered discourse, thankfully.


----------



## rekil (Dec 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> no, thats owen jones again


Extraordinary bit of bluffing in his obligatory Cuba brainfart today.


----------



## coley (Dec 18, 2014)

copliker said:


> Extraordinary bit of bluffing in his obligatory Cuba brainfart today.


Reminds me of a 16 year old William Hague


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2014)

8ball said:


> I thought he did for a limited period before the official launch, and that you can still find it tucked away in a few corners of tinternet.
> 
> Using the profits for helping out grassroots causes seems reasonable in any case.


i am disappointed to hear the law tennis association to benefit from the book.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i am disappointed to hear the law tennis association to benefit from the book.



Law tennis?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Law tennis?




Word association football?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Law tennis?


lawn tennis


----------



## emanymton (Dec 18, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if russell brand so keen on revolution you'd think he would make his book freely available on the internet.


It is, he didn't make it that way mind. I Still haven't read it as I have more important stuff to do. My bellybutton fluff needs cleaning out for one thing.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 18, 2014)

Sweet FA said:


> Bunny la Roche.


Oh god her! Is she still in the SWP? I know she was with the opposition in the recent fiasco not sure if she left or not.


----------



## benedict (Dec 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Oh god her! Is she still in the SWP? I know she was with the opposition in the recent fiasco not sure if she left or not.



Surprised she was able to sneak on there. The screening for Question Time is pretty rigorous.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 18, 2014)

benedict said:


> Surprised she was able to sneak on there. The screening for Question Time is pretty rigorous.



With Brand on, they will have done it knowingly I reckon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2014)

what i'd like to see is a battle of the brands - jo v russell


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what i'd like to see is a battle of the brands - jo v russell


would that be the first married couple they've had on the show?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 18, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what i'd like to see is a battle of the brands - jo v russell



Held at Brands Hatch


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> would that be the first married couple they've had on the show?


i think jo might be the likely winner


----------



## J Ed (Dec 18, 2014)

copliker said:


> Extraordinary bit of bluffing in his obligatory Cuba brainfart today.



They need a proper democracy with a House of Lords and a monarch and private schools for an elite which Owen Jones can pressure to give scholarships to a handful of working-class kids


----------



## elbows (Dec 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> This is my problem with both the book and Mr. Brand's pronouncements - there's no meat to the bones, just waftiness around "revolution". He elucidates the problems well enough, but offers no solutions bar vague utterances about "community".



In that and several other regards, I wonder if he knows he is part of the latest echo of the counter-culture, hippie, youth-culture thing thats been around in reasonably consistent form for rather a number of decades now? Certainly with variations in available accessories to suit, such as extent that drugs, environmentalism, spiritualism, new-age or magical thinking, conspiracy theories, actual political stances and technology feature in the mix. But at its core this stuff, which is more about rites of passage for people of a certain age than it is the future for all humankind, tends to have a predictable conclusion that doesn't shake the world to its very foundation. OK there is always the chance that when exposed to a different set of events and circumstances it could result in a meaningful response this time around. But I'll bet against it unless a bunch of really good ideas are injected somewhere along the way.


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 19, 2014)

Elbows: Very true. All seems a bit new-age crusty. "Spritiuality"? Per-lease.
But I do think it is a bit off to really slag the guy. He was protesting/guerrilla gardening back in 2000 and so on. So he hasn't suddenly decided to be Tony Blair's best mate when he became rich. Fair dos.
If he was sitting next to me I would say...you need to be much more careful and precise. You read Chomsky you say, well you should understand the power of language and association. Giving any time to people like Icke and Easeman as well as using Johan Hari - something I can barely believe, why not instantly discredit yourself - is going to damage you. They are likely using you to gain exposure. You need to be much more careful, a lot more circumspect. Use your money as well, without too many conditions, to support existing work going on. Money is power.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What sort of revolution? Isn't he aware that revolutionary action can be built from actual grassroots activism of the "protest" kind?


Actually I think he probably does think that. I don't myself. Nothing against grassroots activism, but I don't think it can lead to revolution, only to never-ending activism (or rather reactivism to something capitalism throws up).



ViolentPanda said:


> I/m sorry, Jean-Luc, but if you believe the above encapsulates much of anarchist ideology, then you're way too indoctrinated by your own sect's beliefs.


I suspect that many of those who call themselves anarchists or go to the anarchist bookfair will have the same sort of views as him.

Incidentally, which sect (anarchist?) are you in?


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 19, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...working-9935076.html?dkdk?cmpid=facebook-post

Russell Brand's revolution. Fuck off now. Anything he mentions is either a victory or defeat for Brand not the people who have been involved in something for Months, years or decades. It doesn't matter how sincere he is. This is damaging. It might not matter in Jean Luc's world where activism happens in a vacuum so has no effect on anything beyond the immediate issue and has no effect on the people involved, observers and larger struggles. If Brand once to get involved there are better ways to do it. He does a lot more than me so good on him for that over the years I've seen or heard of plenty of (admitedly less famous) celebs getting involved as just another person. Some involved in campaigns for years without vultures like heat magazine or newsnight circling or being dragged into it in a counterproductive way. Activism as a side show to celebrity rather than activism which happens to have some guy from whatever is popular involved. The ironic thing is I can't remember the names of the celebs I mean, only the likes of Brand or Brian May.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Actually I think he probably does think that. I don't myself. Nothing against grassroots activism, but I don't think it can lead to revolution, only to never-ending activism (or rather reactivism to something capitalism throws up).
> 
> I suspect that many of those who call themselves anarchists or go to the anarchist bookfair will have the same sort of views as him.
> 
> Incidentally, which sect (anarchist?) are you in?



I'm not. I'm an old-fashioned freethinker who prefers to avoid sectarian dogma if at all possible.


----------



## treelover (Dec 19, 2014)

J Ed said:


> They need a proper democracy with a House of Lords and a monarch *and private schools for an elite which Owen Jones can pressure to give scholarships to a handful of working-class kids*




Where/when did he say that?


----------



## ddraig (Dec 19, 2014)

surely your not asking someone to provide a source?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> Where/when did he say that?





> I think Oxbridge should have an automatic enrolment for the brightest working class kids.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/proof-that-russell-brands-revolution-may-actually-be-working-9935076.html?dkdk?cmpid=facebook-post
> 
> Russell Brand's revolution. Fuck off now. Anything he mentions is either a victory or defeat for Brand not the people who have been involved in something for Months, years or decades. It doesn't matter how sincere he is. This is damaging. It might not matter in Jean Luc's world where activism happens in a vacuum so has no effect on anything beyond the immediate issue and has no effect on the people involved, observers and larger struggles. If Brand once to get involved there are better ways to do it. He does a lot more than me so good on him for that over the years I've seen or heard of plenty of (admitedly less famous) celebs getting involved as just another person. Some involved in campaigns for years without vultures like heat magazine or newsnight circling or being dragged into it in a counterproductive way. Activism as a side show to celebrity rather than activism which happens to have some guy from whatever is popular involved. The ironic thing is I can't remember the names of the celebs I mean, only the likes of Brand or Brian May.


that's a revolting article. It made me quite cross.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

Yep. If only people could have foreseen such an outcome. _If only we knew!!!_

Check out the journo btw - two days ago she was calling the letter that right-winger wrote to brand 'hilarious'. The rest of her stuff is glamour celeb shite and pimping oxbridge to tourists.


----------



## Mungy (Dec 19, 2014)

i think there is a difference between what rb says and does and what the media report him saying or doing. i really don't think that rb see this as his victory, but as one for the families on the new era estate. the media have tried smearing him, he says i've been a shit and i am trying to better myself. so now they praise him, he'll probably say something like thank you very much, but the families won, i was there to support them and their actions.

hate the man, sure. i'm trusting rb to tell me what he as said and what he thinks, rather than the larger media organism. my checks and balances to being hoodwinked are what other people say, specifically for me, you lot on urban. this is the only forum i belong to that i feel part of, and i trust the opinions of quite a few on here. whether intended or not, urban has shaped my thinking over the last decade


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2014)

Mungy said:


> i think there is a difference between what rb says and does and what the media report him saying or doing. i really don't think that rb see this as his victory, but as one for the families on the new era estate.


I don't think anyone here is saying any different.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 19, 2014)

He can say what he likes but more people will hear the medias version of events than his. They don't even need to report on what he says just associate everything with him, make his role the talking point. Brand can do it all. He's got them on the run. No need for grassroots activism especially not the sort independent of Russ.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 19, 2014)

People like those on here who've had years of experience doing shit who are not going along with it are splitters, purists and consumed by dogma. Commented on that independent article about the negatives of celeb involvement and was told without explanation I was short sighted and not seeing the big picture. Someone else was bemoaning the lack of Faith (fucking faith) the British public had in Brand.


----------



## elbows (Dec 19, 2014)

Since the bulk of my posts here are critical about Brand in all manner of ways, I should probably restate that I wouldn't still be joining in if I didn't think there was any potential there at all.

Indeed a great deal of what infuriates me about the likes of Brand and Assange is that there is obvious opportunity there. That makes seeing it squandered or festooned with horrible, counterproductive sentiments from the famous protagonists in the seat of opportunity all the more annoying.

If I take the main criticisms to their natural conclusion, I suppose I should really go beyond attacking specific figureheads, and spend more time discussing the perils of relying on charismatic individuals at all. Especially when they are liable to use their charisma for many diverse purposes that can conflict badly with each other, such as trying to spearhead a movement whilst simultaneously wooing numerous people into bed.

Cant we use all this new-fangled information technology to find new ways to form entities that consist of many, in a manner that can cancel out some of the numerous failings of the individual, without repeating all the numerous horrors of mass organisations of the past?


----------



## FNG (Dec 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> Who gives a fuck how he's dressed? FFS.
> 
> Anyway, it's interesting that he claims ignorance of a political situation that he's surely very familiar with, as his recently ex-Mrs is the ex of the opposition leader he speaks of so approvingly. Considering one of the things he bangs on about is the hidden (and not so hidden) links between the powerful, you'd have thought he'd declare his interest rather than playing dumb.


i think it is noteworthy because its an affection he puts on when discussing 
Islam, havent watched enough brand to see if he does it on secular issues but its a wee bit odd.


----------



## FNG (Dec 19, 2014)

Brands rebuttal of the bank lunch guy is a good riposte, nowt wrong with a bit of doorstopping imho.
http://www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/


----------



## rekil (Dec 19, 2014)

The FT as well ffs.


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 19, 2014)

FNG said:


> Brands rebuttal of the bank lunch guy is a good riposte, nowt wrong with a bit of doorstopping imho.
> http://www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ding-former-rbs-banker/ar-BBh0xoO?ocid=TSHDHP


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2014)

Flanflinger said:


> http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ding-former-rbs-banker/ar-BBh0xoO?ocid=TSHDHP



Capitalists, eh? It's almost like they're _turning rebellion into money..._


----------



## J Ed (Dec 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. If only people could have foreseen such an outcome. _If only we knew!!!_
> 
> Check out the journo btw - two days ago she was calling the letter that right-winger wrote to brand 'hilarious'. The rest of her stuff is glamour celeb shite and pimping oxbridge to tourists.



These dickheads have difficulty navigating through both history and the present without doing it via Great Men or their modern day equivalents. Feminism is navigated through Beyonce's latest utterances, race through Obama and that socialism stuff through Russell Brand. It's vacuous and stupid but fuck it they get paid for putting it in the paper so why try harder?


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 19, 2014)

That was a good result for those people in the housing estate, then.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2014)

It was. It was _their_ result though, not Brand's.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2014)

walking down cecil court earlier i saw 'revolution' in the window of watkins books, the famous esoterick booksellers.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> It was. It was _their_ result though, not Brand's.


That's pretty much what Brand said, yup.

Even though those involved said he had a hand in it.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2014)

OK. But the article we're talking about talks about it as Brand's victory, Brand's revolution. Cant you see how damaging that is?


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> OK. But the article we're talking about talks about it as Brand's victory, Brand's revolution. Cant you see how damaging that is?


I wasn't talking about an article.  

I was talking about the result...and how the people leading it from the estate said Brand was a big help.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2014)

I'm sure they did. Not sure how that affects what's being discussed here?


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2014)

(fuck off with your snide smilies as well)


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 19, 2014)

I thought what was being discussed here was how bad Brand was for the causes he supports?


----------



## coley (Dec 20, 2014)

FNG said:


> Brands rebuttal of the bank lunch guy is a good riposte, nowt wrong with a bit of doorstopping imho.
> http://www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/


He comes across much better in print.


----------



## chilango (Dec 20, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> I thought what was being discussed here was how bad Brand was for the causes he supports?



Yup.

Can you not see how a victory won by a group being painted as a victory won by a celebrity is a damaging thing in the longer term?


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 20, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yup.
> 
> Can you not see how a victory won by a group being painted as a victory won by a celebrity is a damaging thing in the longer term?


The residents keep their houses.	 That's what I see.   And of course all the publicity means that other people in similar situations can organise and have a better chance of positive outcomes.


----------



## chilango (Dec 20, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> The residents keep their houses.



Which is good.



DexterTCN said:


> And of course all the publicity means that other people in similar situations can organise and have a better chance of positive outcomes.



Does it mean that?

...or does it mean, if this ends up being spun as a victory for Brand, that;

a) Campaigns without the blessing/presence of Brand will feel disempowered?

b) will see courting celebrities and/or media attention as the most viable tactic (when in fact it isn't) to the detriment of other more effective strategies.

c) At some point in the future Brand will get bored and fuck off, leaving those that were relying upon his grace to win high and dry.

d) Some other campaign in the future gets the Brand seal only to find that this is when the media decide to reel out all of Brand's unsavoury links, mates and quote thus tarring the campaign with the indelible taint of anti-semtism, conspiralunacy or misogeny.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Dec 20, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yup.
> 
> Can you not see how a victory won by a group being painted as a victory won by a celebrity is a damaging thing in the longer term?




The right wing press is designed to damage and curtail opposition to the system, so we cannot expect anything other than that. It seems people's opinions in this thread have been conditioned by this fact into being overly defensive and pessimistic.

Now we have a situation whereby in order to attack Brand the press must bring attention to the campaigns he is highlighting and imo this creates interest in his answers and also in those very campaigns. It puts activism higher up on the agenda. The damage doesn't necessarily have to be one way.

Do people here really think that if Brand doesn't make an appearance at a campaign it will flounder?

There has just been a victory of a campaign which should lead to more people feeling that their own campaigns can advance. Given the fact that there is a massive vacuum on the left, publicity that gives oxygen to such campaigns and possibly encourages them to link up is not a bad thing.

I'll ask again. How can this alleged damage (caused by Brand) be measured?


----------



## gosub (Dec 20, 2014)

The key activists considered him an asset*.*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Capitalists, eh? It's almost like they're _turning rebellion into money..._



They've got Burton suits. You think it's funny?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2014)

gosub said:


> The key activists considered him an asset*.*


i don't think many people would consider him an asset. i'm sure the police and mi5 have much better assets within the various groups on the left and local campaigns.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> walking down cecil court earlier i saw 'revolution' in the window of watkins books, the famous esoterick booksellers.



Well, Brand does preach a form of spirituality, when all is said and done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> I thought what was being discussed here was how bad Brand was for the causes he supports?



No, it's what effect he has, and whether that effect is beneficial or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> The right wing press is designed to damage and curtail opposition to the system...



More accurately, to the system that the right wing favours, otherwise they're happy as pigs in shit to be opposed to "the system".


----------



## brogdale (Dec 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> They've got Burton suits. You think it's funny?



If Adolf Hitler flew in today...


----------



## chilango (Dec 20, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> I'll ask again. How can this alleged damage (caused by Brand) be measured?



History will be the judge of that.


----------



## treelover (Dec 20, 2014)

'Raise the roof for Housing' Left Unity Housing Conference in Liverpool in March, wonder if Brand will turn up?


----------



## treelover (Dec 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> that's a revolting article. It made me quite cross.




It does look like Brand is becoming the story, though I would still like it if he turned his fire on Duncan Smith and the deaths/suicides as a consequence of the benefit cuts.




> I imagine the disabled people of our country who have been hit with £6bn of benefit cuts during the period that RBS received £46bn of public bail-out money feel similarly cheesed off.




Ah, he has begun to in his reply to 'Jo', can't imagine Vanessa or Tariq highlighting such basic issues..


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2014)

chilango said:


> History will be the judge of that.


i doubt it will absolve him


----------



## treelover (Dec 20, 2014)

On his website it say all net profits from his book, will go to good causes(unspecified) can't argue with that.




> I was there with filmmaker Michael Winterbottom making a documentary about how the economic crises caused by the banking industry (RBS were found guilty of rigging Libor and the foreign exchange) *has led to an economic attack on the most vulnerable people in society*.





> Now I’ll be the first to admit your lunch has been an unwitting casualty in this well-intentioned quest but I couldn’t resist the opportunity to ask new RBS boss Ross McEwan if he thinks it’s right that he got a £3.2m “golden hello” when the RBS is sellotaped together with money that comes from everyone else’s taxes. I wonder what he would’ve said? Or whether it’s right that Fred “the shred” (he shredded evidence of impropriety) *Goodwin gets to keep his £320k a year pension while disabled people have had their independent living fund scrapped*.




Btw, its Winterbottom who is directing his doc, heavy hitter.Whatever his faults I find it fascinating and heartening he has chosen to focus on very basic issues, housing, benefits, etc, not the usual causes for celebs', and I suspect he will be funding worthwhile grassroots groups like Rob Newman did.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2014)

treelover said:


> On his website it say all net profits from his book, will go to good causes(unspecified) can't argue with that.



What does he actually say?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 20, 2014)

copliker said:


> The FT as well ffs.
> 
> View attachment 65293



Banking. Housing. Buildings and loans. Poundshop George Bailey. Merry Christmas to everyone in Pottersville!


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 20, 2014)

chilango said:


> Which is good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You mean like urban is?

Urban was doing that during _this_ campaign, wasn't it?

Urban was throwing all that shit to tar him during  the campaign to keep those people in their houses, yeah?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> You mean like urban is?
> 
> Urban was doing that during _this_ campaign, wasn't it?
> 
> Urban was throwing all that shit to tar him during  the campaign to keep those people in their houses, yeah?


What is urban? And no, no one was tying any campaigns to any such things. This is where you show that 'urban' was. Or where you say that you don't respond to people who bring up your past.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Anudder Oik said:


> The right wing press is designed to damage and curtail opposition to the system, so we cannot expect anything other than that. It seems people's opinions in this thread have been conditioned by this fact into being overly defensive and pessimistic.
> 
> Now we have a situation whereby in order to attack Brand the press must bring attention to the campaigns he is highlighting and imo this creates interest in his answers and also in those very campaigns. It puts activism higher up on the agenda. The damage doesn't necessarily have to be one way.
> 
> ...


If it can't be measured then it can't happen. Listen to yourself. Measure me anything of this. FFS. How did you _measure _that?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If it can't be measured then it can't happen. Listen to yourself. Measure me anything of this. FFS. How did you _measure _that?



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.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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.


Have you ever been involved in a collective political project the cheese one? I'd guess not.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have you ever been involved in a collective political project cheese? I'd guess not.



no. i'd like to hear your ideas. this thread is 88 pages already.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> no. i'd like to hear your ideas. this thread is 88 pages already.


Because it's quite plain that you haven't. If you had you wouldn't be demanding great man leader manifestos. I have been involved in these things and what's noticeable is the lack of big man manifestos - but also the concomitant demand by those not part of these things that we produce a manifesto or a man.

_He'll look good on the teevey._


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I have been involved in these things and what's noticeable is the lack of big man manifestos - but the concomitant demand by those not part of these things that we produce a manifesto or a man.



so you dont have any then.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> so you dont have any then.


I did one, for coked up thick drunk pretend journos. Brand didn't do one at all.

But then, you don't read other people do you. I think your russell would spit in your face.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> no. i'd like to hear your ideas. this thread is 88 pages already.


so you dont have any then.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I did one, for coked up thick drunk pretend journos. Brand didn't one at all.
> 
> But then, you don't read other people do you. I think your russell would spit on your face.



Can you - instead of resorting to your usual aggression and thuggish repostes - perhaps explain your point of view.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> so you dont have any then.



you havent explained any of your ideas at all. i dont know what they are. Do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Can you - instead of resorting to your usual aggression and thuggish repostes - perhaps explain your point of view.


Just did _love. _Done it all over the thread for months now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> you havent explained any of your ideas at all. i dont know what they are. Do you?


I know that you're very lazy, _thick and arrogant_ and quite posh and pretend that you're not.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just did _love. _Done it all over the thread for months now.



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.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I know that you're very lazy, _thick and arrogant_ and quite posh and pretend that you're not.



im a northsider by the way, from a middle class family with parents who were teachers in the struggling 80s and not posh. if i was i wouldnt care about saying it...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


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


Haven't bothered to read the thread or posts therein -  just use it as a punchbag for what you think people _would _say in your hero obsessed mind. Joker.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> im a northsider by the way, from a middle class family with parents who were teachers in the struggling 80s and not posh. if i was i wouldnt care about saying it...


Yeah. We've all seen auf wiedershen pet. Teachers flying out the place  like wild geese.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Haven't bothered to read the thread or posts therein -  just use it as a punchbag for what you think people would say in your hero obsessed mind. Joker.



 i dont have time to go over 88 pages. Quote your posts or just say what you basically think about how society should be improved.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i dont have time to go over 88 pages. Quote your posts or just say what you basically think about how society should be improved.


Imagine this turning up AT YOUR THING. RUSSELL SAYS DIS.HANG ON. I@LL PUT YOU ON to his pa. NOW, WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

And whatever russell says for me.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Imagine this turning up AT YOUR THING.
> 
> And whatever russell says for me.



Just say what YOU think. Fuck the thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Just say what YOU think. Fuck the thread.


I am a robot. You and brand are loving free animals. The one's that cannot be bothered to read.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I am a robot. You and brand are loving free animals. The one's that cannot be bothered to read.



maybe you need to sleep on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> maybe you need to sleep on it.


You've given an expert class in where blind hero worship leads you. The class thanks you for that. 

(what a fucking mess)


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You've given an expert class in where blind hero worship leads you. The class thanks you for that.
> 
> (what a fucking mess)



i like what i like, and you know its not blind worship.

and i asked you for your opinion....which you havent yet given. If you want to fine, if not, well, fair enough, i wont press you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i like what i like, and you know its not blind worship.
> 
> and i asked you for your opinion....which you havent yet given. If you want to fine, if not, well, fair enough, i wont press you.


Your asking of opinion amounted to either "just say what you want" or a whine _why can't you be like russell?
_
You've never been involved in collective politics, that's why you are demanding i produce a brand for you. Few struggle throw up brands. And they didn't this time. Get yourself involved, you might stop talking such arrogant shit.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Your asking of opinion amounted to either "just say what you want" or a whine _why can't you be like russell?
> _
> You've never been involved in collective politics, that's why you are demanding i produce a brand for you. Few struggle throw up brands. And they didn't this time. Get yourself involved, you might stop talking such arrogant shit.



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


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


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


You're just a pair of glassy eyes aren't you? All that education to waste.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You're just a pair of glassy eyes aren't you? All that education to waste.



dont want to answer it then. i wont press you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


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


This is, as you should know - being an adult - a meaningless question.


----------



## rekil (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> im a northsider by the way, from a middle class family with parents who were teachers in the struggling 80s and not posh. if i was i wouldnt care about saying it...


Not being funny but didn't you start a thread about how great your family's servants were?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

copliker said:


> Not being funny but didn't you start a thread about how great your family's servants were?



nah that wasnt me.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> dont want to answer it then. i wont press you.


I'd love to answer any meaningful questions you have, you haven't any.


----------



## rekil (Dec 21, 2014)

Housekeepers and au pairs aren't really servants.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

copliker said:


> Not being funny but didn't you start a thread about how great your family's servants were?


The week i joined here she was dead of the drink in a week - the doctor told her. Here we are. 13 years later.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> nah that wasnt me.


You want to be careful now.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'd love to answer any meaningful questions you have, you haven't any.



Its not about questions, its about you explaining to people, how YOU think society should be improved, especially given the nature of this thread and all the points you have made about Russell Brand. Not that hard.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Its not about questions, its about you explaining to people, how YOU think society should be improved, especially given the nature of this thread and all the points you have made about Russell Brand. Not that hard.


What points did i make?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

copliker said:


> Housekeepers and au pairs aren't really servants.


 
we had a housekeeper who helped my grandmother cos my grandparents were separated. i would appreciate if you didnt make personal insults about my family, thanks.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What points did i make?



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!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> we had a housekeeper who helped my grandmother cos my grandparents were separated. i would appreciate if you didnt make personal insults about my family, thanks.


All on the nod eh



> A housekeeper of one of those fellows If you could pick it out of her. Never pick it out of her. Like getting L. s. d. out of him. Does himself well. No guests. All for number one. Watching his water. Bring your own bread and butter. His reverence. Mum's the word.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> All on the nod eh



dont quote dumb stuff when i have already explained it.... i should report this. can you refrain from quoting it please (its already been explained thanks)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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!


FEAR

1) FEAR
2) EGO
3) AGGRESSION
4) REPUTABLE SOURCES,

Simple, Congrats on not being a windy hero licker btw

I need answers from you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> dont quote dumb stuff when i have already explained it.... i should report this. can you refrain from quoting it please (its already been explained thanks)


Don't quote you when you look like you're caught bullshitting? You better just _leave this place._


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

i think editor should either ban this dude, or ask him to reel his neck in.

Urban doesnt need it - an aggressive wanker who is rude when engaged in debate and - when asked a SIMPLE question: his point of view, politically - responds like this.

He has still refused to explain his political point of view on here: what he would like society to be like, how it should be ruled, what its values should be, structure and so forth. I think that, instead of reading his critical posts, we would like to hear HIS ideas (if he has any).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i think editor should either ban this dude, or ask him to reel his neck in.
> 
> Urban doesnt need it - an aggressive wanker who is rude when engaged in debate and - when asked a SIMPLE question: his point of view, politically - responds like this.
> 
> He has still refused to explain his political point of view: what he would like society to be like, how it should be ruled, what its values should be and so forth.


The fist in the ticko velvet glove, the blueshirt in every drunken_ fuck the brits_ posho xmas party taxi home


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 21, 2014)

butchers, you are one sick fuck.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i think editor should either ban this dude, or ask him to reel his neck in.
> 
> Urban doesnt need it - an aggressive wanker who is rude when engaged in debate and - when asked a SIMPLE question: his point of view, politically - responds like this.
> 
> He has still refused to explain his political point of view on here: what he would like society to be like, how it should be ruled, what its values should be, structure and so forth. I think that, instead of reading his critical posts, we would like to hear HIS ideas (if he has any).


A_h, he's quicker and cleverer than me, he needs to go - for the good of the childer_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> butchers, you are one sick fuck.


Get in there!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> butchers, you are one sick fuck.


I would contend that this is a silly celeb-obsessed thing to say.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What points did i make?


]
none anyone can remember, we would like to hear them


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 21, 2014)

Good on you Cheesypoof for standing up to the bully.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

i'd love to say butchers 'im only messing with ya' but you've set yerself up like  prick.

dont come on Urban givin it the biggin and then being a prick, alright?

i've asked at least 5 (politely perhaps the first two times)  on this thread for your opinions. And, you dont have any!!!  You arent clever. no one gives a fuck.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

.


Cheesypoof said:


> ]
> none anyone can remember, we would like to hear them


Sort your memory out posho. Big 'ol search engine up there. What you can't remember is meaningless


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> .
> 
> Sort your memory out posho. Big 'ol search engine up there. What you can't remember is meaningless



 can you understand, im NOT POSH!! people on this messageboard know me in real life and im not trying to be a cunt (i am honestly not posh).  you could slag me off for being goofy, ugly, loads of other stuff mate....but at least if you fire a missile make it (factually) correct!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i'd love to say butchers 'im only messing with ya' but you've set yerself up like  prick.
> 
> dont come on Urban givin it the biggin and then being a prick, alright?
> 
> no one gives a fuck.


Yeah, now we get closer to home, teachers eh. OK. Now noone cares.

Ya', been out on the cars? It's biggun, not a fat panto dame btw.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> can you understand, im NOT POSH!! people on this messageboard know me in real life and im not trying to be a cunt (i am honestly not posh).  you could slag me off for being goofy, ugly, loads of other stuff mate....but at least if you fire a missile make it (factually) correct!!!


I am, you're lying.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)




----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

BUTCHERSANAPRON, stop being a prick and listen up good - i dont want to ask Urbans who KNOW me to step in and interrupt this thread as that is just stupid and embarassing.

i think you should just sort yourself out - and stop being an arrogant prick to people on here, alright? You aint even that clever. im sick of you being a cunt to people on here, when they make a remark and cutting them down. Its nasty and no need.  Here's the truth - they are often too scared to respond for fear of retribution, from you!!! Good night!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i dont want to ask Urbans who KNOW me to step in and interrupt this thread as that is just stupid and embarassing.
> 
> i think you should just sort yourself out Butchers - and stop being an arrogant prick to people on here, alright? You aint that clever either. I dont give a fuck if this causes an argument - im sick of you being a cunt to people on here, when they make a remark and cutting them down. They are often too scared to respond for fear of retribution, from you!!! Good night!!!


You post shit i call it shit.

No matter if you runaway or not. No matter what you think about me calling other bullshitters. A half hour of reading the thread would be respectful - not of me (you already decided that you didn't need to bother - that you knew better\) to the thread. Now you, it's all about you again. Why not fuck off and not do that? Or offer a thought though piece to the thread.

I've posted at great length on the lines of what i think brand is doing/how it effects others/what he does

Ive not seen you or diane offer a single word. I hope to god that no one else has to or to be put under the spotlight  of_ have you a manifesto? 
_
Imagine that coming into our movements/initiatives - that strident  stupid coalition


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

why dont you actually express your opinions rather than shoot others down? if you DID, and HAD any substance, i would not be having this conversation with you right now. Shut up and grow a pair, and just say what you think politically (even if that means editing earlier perhaps badly written posts if there are ANY where you actually expressed an original, authentic viewpoint ).

This may take time (have you any authentic viewpoints??) and strong opinions, why are you on this thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> why dont you actually express your opinions rather than shoot others down? if you DID, and HAD any substance, i would not be having this conversation with you right now. Shut up and grow a pair, and just say what you think politically (even if that means editing earlier perhaps badly written posts if there are ANY where you actually expressed an original, authentic viewpoint ).
> 
> This may take time (have you any authentic viewpoints??) and strong opinions, why are you on this thread?


Is this the middle class managerial coming out - we understand you may have views an opinions but they can only be expressed in ways what we like and recognise. 

Teachers girl alright.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> why dont you actually express your opinions rather than shoot others down? if you DID, and HAD any substance, i would not be having this conversation with you right now. Shut up and grow a pair, and just say what you think politically (even if that means editing earlier perhaps badly written posts if there are ANY where you actually expressed an original, authentic viewpoint ).
> 
> This may take time (have you any authentic viewpoints??) and strong opinions, why are you on this thread?


You are made of confetti. Weightless. Experienceless. A free floating little ball of 21st century posh entitlement. Reliant on repeating the word authentic over and over rather than taking lessons from authentic people or seeing authenticity.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I did one



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?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

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. Good to know you didn't let it get to you or anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

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 (Dec 21, 2014)

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 (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

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 (Dec 21, 2014)

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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Yeah,  i thought you would not  be able to.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


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


she's taking the royal wee


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Are "manifestos" the new "credentials"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You want to be careful now.



Down with that sort of thing!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

rioted said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> butchers, you are one sick fuck.



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


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Nice one said:


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


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

Nice one said:


> _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.
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> My Len Goodman to your Lucy Worsley.


i'll let you lead then


----------



## Nice one (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


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


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2014)

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


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2014)

its not all circular and tedious. Matters thatnhave come to light such as dodgy connections, PUA, anti semites and so forth, thats stuff people should really be reading before holding up brand as some sort of holy che


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its not all circular and tedious. Matters thatnhave come to light such as dodgy connections, PUA, anti semites and so forth, thats stuff people should really be reading before holding up brand as some sort of holy che


yeh. you do know che's not all he's cracked up to be too, don't you? Spanky Longhorn of the opinion he once shagged a dolphin or some such and che did worse things than that too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

killer b said:


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


no it isn't. it is a bit unreasonable for someone to jump in on an argument without some vague idea what it's all about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

caleb said:


> 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?



TBF he's an addict. We're often a bit contradictory with regard to issues around addiction, because you've often got (even if you're clean) that whole love/hate thing going on with your choice(s) of poison and what they do to you as an individual and to people as a collective.
As for a spiritual revolution connected to addressing addiction, that comes across as a twelve-stepper thing - that whole "higher power" _schtick_, writ large.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> 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.



nar, there'll be definitely some people involved with more than 2 gcses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> 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.



Isn't that part of the fun with Zizek, that knife-edge thing of wondering whether or not you've caught the gist of his rant?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Nice one said:


> _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.
> 
> ...


That's not a real world example at all is it. I think you've just made it up.

Here's the poundland lawyer logic:
_
Do you agree with a pejorative assertion that you've not made? I'll assume that you do for the purposes of my shonky argument - so would you be happy asserting this thing that you don't believe to people who know from personal experience that it's not true? Eh would you? Would you? _

*prods in chest with shears*


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

killer b said:


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


It us unreasonable to think _ah, many pages, people i don't get on with - they must be saying something simplistic and crude that i can attack and disagree with. I will therefore attack them for that. For what i think they should say as i don't like them and i wouldn't not get on with them otherwise. I won't bother checking if they have said it._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

killer b said:


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



I don't expect people to read the whole 2700+ posts. I do expect them to at least skim them, though, and get a reasonable general impression of where the thread has gone and/or is going.
Maybe I'm just a sadist.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's not a real world example at all is it. I think you've just made it up.
> 
> Here's the poundland laywer logic:
> _
> ...



aye i thought it all up out of my own head. Do this russel brand.

_Here's a question for you. You can answer it if you want, you don't have to, it's only the internet_.


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2014)

That's fair enough. Tbh its pretty clear reading the whole thread wouldn't help anyway - theyre more interested in attacking than your actual answer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its not all circular and tedious. Matters thatnhave come to light such as dodgy connections, PUA, anti semites and so forth, thats stuff people should really be reading before holding up brand as some sort of holy che



TBF, his marketing people have caused *that* particular perception, and should dance a Lamp-post waltz for it. It's almost as crap a visual meme as the "I like the Pope. The Pope smokes dope" T-shirt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you do know che's not all he's cracked up to be too, don't you? Spanky leghorn of the opinion he once shagged a dolphin or some such and che did worse things than that too.



Are we talking about Spanky Longhorn shagging the dolphin, or Russell Brand?
Cos I could totally believe it of Spanky. He's pure filth!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are we talking about Spanky Longhorn shagging the dolphin, or Russell Brand?
> Cos I could totally believe it of Spanky. He's pure filth!


either suits me


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are we talking about Spanky Longhorn shagging the dolphin, or Russell Brand?
> Cos I could totally believe it of Spanky. He's pure filth!


He's been all down south america too.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 21, 2014)

I have fondled a bear (in a platonic sense) that lived in Che's flat in La Paz but never a dolphin


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

the party will really start when Cheesypoof rouses herself from her slumber and joins us again


----------



## rekil (Dec 21, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I have fondled a bear (in a platonic sense) that lived in Che's flat in La Paz but never a dolphin


This needs the full Clinton denial style video treatment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i fucking will halyz!!
> 
> it takes a LOT more than a dude like Russel Brand to impress me - he aint special at all and i dont think hed be good in bed either


it seems cheesy's opinion's undergone something of a shift over the years. indeed she voted brand crap once upon a time http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/russell-brand-crap-not-crap.101629/


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I did one, for coked up thick drunk pretend journos. Brand didn't do one at all.
> 
> But then, you don't read other people do you. I think your russell would spit in your face.





butchersapron said:


> I know that you're very lazy, _thick and arrogant_ and quite posh and pretend that you're not.





butchersapron said:


> Haven't bothered to read the thread or posts therein -  just use it as a punchbag for what you think people _would _say in your hero obsessed mind. Joker.





butchersapron said:


> You're just a pair of glassy eyes aren't you? All that education to waste.





butchersapron said:


> The week i joined here she was dead of the drink in a week - the doctor told her. Here we are. 13 years later.





butchersapron said:


> You want to be careful now.





butchersapron said:


> FEAR
> 
> 1) FEAR
> 2) EGO
> ...





butchersapron said:


> Don't quote you when you look like you're caught bullshitting? You better just _leave this place._





butchersapron said:


> I am, you're lying.





butchersapron said:


> Is this the middle class managerial coming out - we understand you may have views an opinions but they can only be expressed in ways what we like and recognise.
> 
> Teachers girl alright.





butchersapron said:


> You are made of confetti. Weightless. Experienceless. A free floating little ball of 21st century posh entitlement. Reliant on repeating the word authentic over and over rather than taking lessons from authentic people or seeing authenticity.



Couldn't give a toss about RB...
But the above posts are ugly.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

_Ugly people. Ugly lifes._


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Couldn't give a toss about RB...
> But the above posts are ugly.


it would be nice if you could express an argument instead of solely a sentiment.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Ugly people. Ugly lifes._



(


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

I knew I'd get ripped by Butchers and his buddies if i told him what a massive cock he is.

But it was so worth it!!


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2014)

your powers of prediction are uncanny.


----------



## andysays (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I knew I'd get ripped by Butchers and his buddies if i told him what a massive cock he is.
> 
> But it was so worth it!!



But still, you understand nothing



> Revolution is not “showing” life to people, but bringing them to life. A revolutionary must always remember that their aim is not getting adherents to listen to convincing talks by expert leaders*, but getting them to speak for themselves, in order to achieve, or at least strive toward, an equal degree of participation



*or to read and discuss the writings of celebrity psuedo-activist authors.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, his marketing people have caused *that* particular perception, and should dance a Lamp-post waltz for it. It's almost as crap a visual meme as the "I like the Pope. The Pope smokes dope" T-shirt.



can't really mock, I  had the che t-shirt (longsleeve, olive colour background) and I've got the hammer n sickle tattooed on my right arm. I regret nothing!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I knew I'd get ripped by Butchers and his buddies if i told him what a massive cock he is.
> 
> But it was so worth it!!



Wow, you're such a hero!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> can't really mock, I  had the che t-shirt (longsleeve, olive colour background) and I've got the hammer n sickle tattooed on my right arm. I regret nothing!



A Che t-shirt is to be expected at a certain age, as is a political tattoo, but a "Russell Brand as Che" t-shirt? You'd deserve to have your bollocks kicked so hard that your sac ruptured for that sort of twattery!!!


----------



## chilango (Dec 21, 2014)

Nice one said:


> _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.
> 
> ...



A community activist conference that requires a celeb to publicise it in order for it to be a success is a bad idea doomed to failure.

A successful community activist conference would be rooted in, drawn from and directed by the community and publicity would be meaningless.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A Che t-shirt is to be expected at a certain age, as is a political tattoo, but a "Russell Brand as Che" t-shirt? You'd deserve to have your bollocks kicked so hard that your sac ruptured for that sort of twattery!!!


theres a great photo out there that I have been unable to google. It's galloway next to some fan art, done in that four square panels with different colours but a face silhouette style- warholish. It's got flaming galla, chavez and two others in it. Galloway is beaming merrily next to it in the flesh. copliker  I bet you have it somewhere


----------



## rekil (Dec 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> can't really mock, I  had the che t-shirt (longsleeve, olive colour background) and I've got the hammer n sickle tattooed on my right arm. I regret nothing!


I have a Che tshirt and also a 'don't tread on me' Metallica one. I know someone who gets hold of stuff seized by customs and he passes some of it on to me. The worst haul was a batch of Counting Crows 'live' cds. There was someone dressed up as Che at the last big demo here; scraggly beard, beret, badges, mismatched camo, but no cigar - a loudhailer instead of a cigar. Why bother if you're not going to do the cigar? And are our homegrown revolutionary bigwigs not good enough? Why not dress up as Napper Tandy or something.


----------



## rekil (Dec 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> theres a great photo out there that I have been unable to google. It's galloway next to some fan art, done in that four square panels with different colours but a face silhouette style- warholish. It's got flaming galla, chavez and two others in it. Galloway is beaming merrily next to it in the flesh. copliker  I bet you have it somewhere


I'm sure it's been posted on here. Any volunteers to trawl through all 'galloway' search results?

I think it was featured on the thread where it was mentioned that he was selling his house. Found it anyway.


----------



## maomao (Dec 21, 2014)

Google images 'galloway, che, chavez, painting'


----------



## rekil (Dec 21, 2014)

It deserves two posts.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> A community activist conference that requires a celeb to publicise it in order for it to be a success is a bad idea doomed to failure.
> 
> A successful community activist conference would be rooted in, drawn from and directed by the community and publicity would be meaningless.



agreed. If i was involved in organising a conference of all the various groups fighting housing sell offs, rents hikes, bad management and upkeep etc i wouldn't even take brand's money, never mind asking him to do benefit shows up and down the country. 

What though would you say if the brand supporters in the new era/e15 campaigns put forward a formal proposal to have him included in some form at this conference?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2014)

I'd say that I thought they won their campaigns not Brand, and that whilst I think his heart is in the right place he has some dodgy political ideas and may turn out to be more of a liability than as asset, the recent Brand wins his campiagn media coverage demonstrates that.  That doesn't mean he can't be involved, just that he should stay in the background wherever possible (chequebook) and we should be looking to each other as tenants to drive forward the campaign, not celebrities.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> butchers, you are one sick fuck.


lol


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2014)

Does anyone have a link where I can read this revolution book without the inconvenience of having to pay for it? (or more likely start to read it and then get bored and go back to reading Robert Rankin books on me kindle)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I knew I'd get ripped by Butchers and his buddies if i told him what a massive cock he is.
> 
> But it was so worth it!!


how you suffer for your faith


----------



## chilango (Dec 21, 2014)

Nice one said:


> What though would you say if the brand supporters in the new era/e15 campaigns put forward a formal proposal to have him included in some form at this conference?



Exactly what I've said on here unsurprisingly enough.

I've been here before, IRL, discussing celeb involvement/backing of stuff I've  been involved in.

I argued (largely) the same then too.

Iirc we turned down substantial donations in order to remain in full "self-management" of our stuff.


----------



## campanula (Dec 21, 2014)

Is Brand releasing a film this year - titled 'Brand'?

I suspect he is in the grip of some delusional self-aggrandisement and will, inevitably, wander off once he has mined the celebrity activist theme for his own nefarious purposes. Brand's relationship to his fans and deserving causes (who decides which ones he supports?) is ultimately exploitative - he usurps the ideas and efforts of others and appropriates their struggles for his own enrichment. I detect not a whit of modesty or discernment in his grab for attention - he could, of course, have put his book on some open source site....but nope, this whole sordid episode is Brand, working for brand Brand. It is a bloody marketing exercise and most certainly nothing even slightly revolutionary. 
For the first time since joining Urban, I will now be using the ignore option


----------



## brogdale (Dec 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Does anyone have a link where I can read this revolution book without the inconvenience of having to pay for it? (or more likely start to read it and then get bored and go back to reading Robert Rankin books on me kindle)


Waterstones' chairs can be quite comfy.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 21, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I have fondled a bear (in a platonic sense) that lived in Che's flat in La Paz but never a dolphin





copliker said:


> This needs the full Clinton denial style video treatment.



Surely there's some sort of plot for a Paddington sequel in this.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 21, 2014)

.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Does anyone have a link where I can read this revolution book without the inconvenience of having to pay for it? (or more likely start to read it and then get bored and go back to reading Robert Rankin books on me kindle)



*cough cough* spent spineynorman a link.

eta: Anybody got a link for his footie book?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 21, 2014)

Nothing speaks louder than success.



http://www.theguardian.com/society/...undation-dolphin-square-new-era-estate-london


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 21, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Nothing speaks louder than success.


----------



## campanula (Dec 21, 2014)

What the fucking fuck - I know I meant to ignore this stuff...but what are we to make of this video image - our hero surrounded by three photogenic 'mums', beaming in his direction - this is spurious, pop-videoing glamourising protest - a fucking travesty ...which also begs the question - why THIS cause above others of similar outrage. Colour me sceptical but I am detecting a certain amount of bullshit here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Nothing speaks louder than success.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...undation-dolphin-square-new-era-estate-london



which campaigns has he been associated with that have been abject failures?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

Gwan Russell


----------



## chilango (Dec 21, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Nothing speaks louder than success.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...undation-dolphin-square-new-era-estate-london




Y'see?

It's started.

The neutering and disempowerment.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2014)

Does anyone think that regardless of foppish libertarians like rb writing articles and even a book with a daring title (i dont think it lives up to it to be honest...), some halfhazard (and so far, pretty inneffective protesting) and people sparring on the Internet, there really will BE a revolution?? I fucking hope so!!


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Nothing speaks louder than success.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...undation-dolphin-square-new-era-estate-london



Russell's success. Interesting the difference between that Guardian article and the one I posted Thursday night before the deal was confirmed. At that point the Messiah was only a celebrity down the road who popped along to number 10 with them. He was part of the story. Less than a paragraph below the point where I imagine a lot of people would stop reading  and a photo where he was one among many. Look at him now. He is the story. Top centre with a megaphone. The chosen image for the youtube video. According to other articles leading his revolution of which this is just the first victory. None of this is directly his doing, he may be sincere in his it "wasn't me it was the residents" schtick but who is listening to that. Are people really taking onboard your sentiment of working together or are they just getting behind the latest celebrity cause? Where does this leave the next of your real issues?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 22, 2014)

campanula said:


> What the fucking fuck - I know I meant to ignore this stuff...but what are we to make of this video image - our hero surrounded by three photogenic 'mums', beaming in his direction - this is spurious, pop-videoing glamourising protest - a fucking travesty ...which also begs the question - why THIS cause above others of similar outrage. Colour me sceptical but I am detecting a certain amount of bullshit here.



Why the scarequote around the word 'mums'?


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

smokedout said:


> I'd say that I thought they won their campaigns not Brand, and that whilst I think his heart is in the right place he has some dodgy political ideas and may turn out to be more of a liability than as asset, the recent Brand wins his campiagn media coverage demonstrates that.  That doesn't mean he can't be involved, just that he should stay in the background wherever possible (chequebook) and we should be looking to each other as tenants to drive forward the campaign, not celebrities.



the sentiments are definitely conciliatory but i'm assuming that's because you are speaking to, and would be working with, the brand supporters from new era/e15. 

But essentially your saying the opposite of what you actually think of brand. You think he's a liability now (who may well change to become an asset) and we shouldn't trust him. Don't you think the new era people/e15 deserve to know why you think that of brand?


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

campanula said:


> What the fucking fuck - I know I meant to ignore this stuff...but what are we to make of this video image - our hero surrounded by three photogenic 'mums', beaming in his direction - this is spurious, pop-videoing glamourising protest - a fucking travesty ...which also begs the question - why THIS cause above others of similar outrage. Colour me sceptical but I am detecting a certain amount of bullshit here.



what do you think of the women in that video?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 22, 2014)

The kiss of death for the Green Party?


----------



## campanula (Dec 22, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Why the scarequote around the word 'mums'?



Because these mothers are both young, photogenic but maternal - the fact that they are parents does simultaneously limit but also enhance their sexuality (does RB only pose with women?)
I am finding it hard to put my finger on what is so offensive but I think it is not an accident that the New Era was selected above, say, the bedroom tax, asylum detentions or any number of significant issues - although I accept that as a standalone campaign, it has vaildity instead of a more nebulous and less focused action.

Does Caroline Lucas look somewhat uncomfortable and 'invaded'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

brand cld do a good fagin in a production of oliver


----------



## FNG (Dec 22, 2014)




----------



## Dillinger4 (Dec 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> brand cld do a good fagin in a production of oliver



"I'd do anything"


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

campanula said:


> Because these mothers are both young, photogenic but maternal - the fact that they are parents does simultaneously limit but also enhance their sexuality (does RB only pose with women?)
> I am finding it hard to put my finger on what is so offensive but I think it is not an accident that the New Era was selected above, say, the bedroom tax, asylum detentions or any number of significant issues - although I accept that as a standalone campaign, it has vaildity instead of a more nebulous and less focused action.
> 
> Does Caroline Lucas look somewhat uncomfortable and 'invaded'?



WOW! that's a seriously incredible post. 

I could be wrong but the new era campaign was started and led by women (the three women in the video?). It was an incredibly strong campaign led by incredibly strong people, and you in a couple of sentences have reduced these women who battled incredibly fucking hard to win their victory to brand appendages in their own campaign. 

You've done the very thing people have been accusing brand of doing. Did you listen to what they had to say in the video? Did you hear them talk about _their _campaign or have you just looked at the image?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> WOW! that's a seriously incredible post.
> 
> I could be wrong but the new era campaign was started and led by women (the three women in the video?). It was an incredibly strong campaign led by incredibly strong people, and you in a couple of sentences have reduced these women who battled incredibly fucking hard to win their victory to brand appendages in their own campaign.
> 
> You've done the very thing people have been accusing brand of doing. Did you listen to what they had to say in the video? Did you hear them talk about _their _campaign or have you just looked at the image?


you need to widen your vocabulary.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you need to widen your vocabulary.


 you need to like campanula's post, just to be safe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> you need to like campanula's post, just to be safe.


it is unbelievable and somewhat depressing you seem unaware of synonyms for incredible.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it is unbelievable and somewhat depressing you seem unaware of synonyms for incredible.


That's what you get with no GCSEs. So what do you think of these photogenic 'mums' pickmans? Use as many synonyms as you like


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 22, 2014)

I left school without any qualifications.  Your point is?


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> I left school without any qualifications.  Your point is?


Shouldn't you be pickmans?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

I left school with _minus _qualifications. There, I'm the proliest.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 22, 2014)

Am I too smart for a prole?

Or cry about everything and keep the inferiority complex.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Am I too smart for a prole?
> 
> Or cry about everything and keep the inferiority complex.



A bit of both I'd say.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

Joke btw.


----------



## coley (Dec 22, 2014)

FFS, some bugger shoot Brand, this has got to be the biggest load celeb loathing/ loving crap ever.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 22, 2014)

campanula said:


> Because these mothers are both young, photogenic but maternal - the fact that they are parents does simultaneously limit but also enhance their sexuality (does RB only pose with women?)
> I am finding it hard to put my finger on what is so offensive but I think it is not an accident that the New Era was selected above, say, the bedroom tax, asylum detentions or any number of significant issues - although I accept that as a standalone campaign, it has vaildity instead of a more nebulous and less focused action.
> 
> Does Caroline Lucas look somewhat uncomfortable and 'invaded'?



I've said previously on this thread that Brand's apparent inclination towards lizard stuff is damaging in the long run, so I'm not a person who is in awe of his celebrity, but that really is the most bizarre post I have read in a long time. So bizarre I'm not even sure where to begin. I can't fathom how you came to any of those conclusions.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

ftr Brand has previously posed with men..


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Am I too smart for a prole?
> 
> Or cry about everything and keep the inferiority complex.


Are you still being pickmans? 

Left school with no qualifications still got no qualifications (save for cscs card and pat testing certificate) and I'm getting a telling off from a university librarian about having a limited vocabulary.

Class act


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 22, 2014)

I wonder whether celebrity endorsements of single-issue grass-roots campaign discredit them any more (or less) than endorsement by revolutionary groups or even individual revolutionaries. After all, they are not about revolution but about trying to achieve something immediate within the system and a hostile media can just as easily try to discredit them by saying that they are a front for revolutionaries as that they are a publicity stunt for a celebrity with (or without) a dodgy past. In any event, the revolution is not going to develop out of them, however democratic or autonomous they are. But good luck to them all the same.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> That's what you get with no GCSEs. So what do you think of these photogenic 'mums' pickmans? Use as many synonyms as you like


it's to me strange you can use words like appendages which are rare but use incredible / incredibly several times in a short post rather than obvious alternatives like very, unbelievable or remarkably. i don't believe it has anything to do with your qualifications. anyway i've made my point and don't see anything to be gained by continuing this sidetrack. as for my view of the e15 mums i think it interesting brand's so keen on jumping on that bandwagon when there were and are lots of less famous people who've done rather more for them. atm it may seem useful to be associated withis auld sexist but he'll clearly jump the shark soon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ftr Brand has previously posed with men..


judging from that he's no man but an angel


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> Are you still being pickmans?
> 
> Left school with no qualifications still got no qualifications (save for cscs card and pat testing certificate) and I'm getting a telling off from a university librarian about having a limited vocabulary.
> 
> Class act


for the record i didn't give you a telling off.

e2a: vocabulary has nothing to do with qualifications, and i'd have said the same thing i said to you to anyone who used the same word four times in a short post. i didn't know whether you had no gcses nor whether you had nine a* gcses, doesn't to me make any difference. you come across as an intelligent person and no amount of pieces of paper can give you that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

And he got laid off.


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 22, 2014)

Urban slagging someone who does something constructive shocker!!


----------



## J Ed (Dec 22, 2014)

Came across this episode of Doug Henwood's programme with Mark Fisher praising Russell Brand just over a year ago.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> Urban slagging someone who does something constructive shocker!!


In what way is it constructive?


----------



## killer b (Dec 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Anecdotal data (people who post about him positively on my facebook feed) suggests a strong crossover with people who voted Lib Dem at the last general election.


Further confirmation, if any were needed.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I left school with _minus _qualifications. There, I'm the proliest.



you spelt 'there' correctly. your disqualified. get to the front of the class with the other swots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> you spelt 'there' correctly. your disqualified. get to the front of the class with the other swots.


_erratum_: for 'your' read 'you're'.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> _erratum_: for 'your' read 'you're'.





back of the class 1982-87.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> Urban slagging someone who does something constructive shocker!!


says the man who fell for cleggmania hook line and 'I agree with nick 'sinker


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Further confirmation, if any were needed.


Confirmation of what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> judging from that he's no man but an angel



cold day probably


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> You've done the very thing people have been accusing brand of doing. Did you listen to what they had to say in the video? Did you hear them talk about _their _campaign or have you just looked at the image?


Its worse than that. Even if Brand was 100% sincere, didn't have dodgy links and wasn't an egotist this would be happening. He would despite his best efforts be helping to sideline the "incredibly strong people" running an " incredibly strong campaign". Both his supporters and detractors would make it about him. I guess this post is as guilty of that as anything.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> cold day probably



Possibly over generous.
May Day 2001. OB in shirtsleeves?
Meebe he's _all talk and no trousers_?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

campanula said:


> What the fucking fuck - I know I meant to ignore this stuff...but what are we to make of this video image - our hero surrounded by three photogenic 'mums', beaming in his direction - this is spurious, pop-videoing glamourising protest - a fucking travesty ...



*Two* beaming mums, and a third looking like Russell's self-promotion has given her indigestion. 



> which also begs the question - why THIS cause above others of similar outrage. Colour me sceptical but I am detecting a certain amount of bullshit here.



It's sort of local to him, like E15 Focus is.

I don't believe he's a self-aggrandising cunt (a view certain posters of little brain have tried to attribute to anyone critiquing Russy-Wussy), although I'd willingly stake a bet on his marketing people being that crass. I think he's just not put much thought into what the negatives of his involvement might be with regard to attaching himself to those specific causes - both for himself and the causes.
As for his book. It's entertaining - as I said many dozens of pages ago, it's a stream-of-consciousness belch of politics, rather than a manual for revolution, and to treat it as such a manual, or Brand as an icon of revolution does a disservice to the book and to the man.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Does anyone think that regardless of foppish libertarians like rb writing articles and even a book with a daring title (i dont think it lives up to it to be honest...), some halfhazard (and so far, pretty inneffective protesting) and people sparring on the Internet, there really will BE a revolution?? I fucking hope so!!



A daring title? Have you been drinking wino piss? It's not a "daring title", it's deliberate titillation of the reading public, probably thought up by his publisher's marketing dept.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Why the scarequote around the word 'mums'?



I suspect that campanula is pointing up the way that the women are being represented by Mr. Brand. IMO (and it's only my opinion, not a claim) such representation can be used both ways - it can represent mothers as the everyday heroines that so many of them are, but it can also be used to represent them as residualised appendages - and the media often goes for the easier interpretation. If they do, then the mums get faded into the background while Brand pontificates for the cameras.


----------



## rekil (Dec 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A daring title? Have you been drinking wino piss? It's not a "daring title", it's deliberate titillation of the reading public, probably thought up by his publisher's marketing dept.


Pinched off Ron Paul's marketing dept. more like.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> WOW! that's a seriously incredible post.
> 
> I could be wrong...



It's often the way.



> ...but the new era campaign was started and led by women (the three women in the video?). It was an incredibly strong campaign led by incredibly strong people, and you in a couple of sentences have reduced these women who battled incredibly fucking hard to win their victory to brand appendages in their own campaign.



In my reading, campanula has done the exact opposite, and pointed out that there's a very real risk of Brand's barnstorming reducing them to appendages.

BTW, could you say "incredibly" a few more times, just for anyone who missed the first shower?



> You've done the very thing people have been accusing brand of doing. Did you listen to what they had to say in the video? Did you hear them talk about _their _campaign or have you just looked at the image?



Read campanula's post. It tells you all you need know if you actually *read* it, rather than just react to it.


----------



## yield (Dec 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Came across this episode of Doug Henwood's programme with Mark Fisher praising Russell Brand just over a year ago.


Thread from then.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/mark-fisher-on-privilege-twitter-commentariat-etc.317611/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> I left school without any qualifications.  Your point is?



I think that his point is that he's playing the poor thickie in contrast to P's M's erudition.
Which means that nice one entirely missed the dozens of pages of discussion about the fact that people can very easily be erudite, knowledgeable and expert while having no qualifications whatsoever.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2014)

copliker said:


> I'm sure it's been posted on here. Any volunteers to trawl through all 'galloway' search results?
> 
> I think it was featured on the thread where it was mentioned that he was selling his house. Found it anyway.
> 
> View attachment 65366




i bet he has hung that on his bedroom cieling


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that his point is that he's playing the poor thickie in contrast to P's M's erudition.
> Which means that nice one entirely missed the dozens of pages of discussion about the fact that people can very easily be erudite, knowledgeable and expert while having no qualifications whatsoever.



Oh, he 'knows his place.'  The fool.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> Are you still being pickmans?
> 
> Left school with no qualifications still got no qualifications (save for cscs card and pat testing certificate) and I'm getting a telling off from a university librarian about having a limited vocabulary.
> 
> Class act



Playing the prole card for all it is worth really is a "class act". You're playing a role.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Oh, he 'knows his place.'  The fool.



The only time we should "know our place" is when we arrive at where we intended to be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ftr Brand has previously posed with men..



Bloke in the sweatshirt on the far left of the picture is blatantly saying "FFS Brand, put it away! We don't need to be seeing that!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> Urban slagging someone who does something constructive shocker!!



trev jumping in when he hasn't read the thread shocker!

You muppet!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Confirmation of what?



Of the link between Brand fans and voting Lib-Dem. Trev is notorious for voting LD in 2010.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 22, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> The kiss of death for the Green Party?


Brand likes the greens = everyone's worst suspicions confirmed.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 22, 2014)

He'll give up on the struggles of working class families soon, so he can save the Bolivian arse wasp.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Brand likes the greens = everyone's worst suspicions confirmed.



He's very tactile, isn't he?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2014)

a hands on approach to things


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

Is that the picket-line crossing union-busting Greens he's on about?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 22, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> He'll give up on the struggles of working class families soon, so he can save the Bolivian arse wasp.


At first iread that as 'shave' the Bolivian arse wasp. He'd probably do that as well though the dirty bastard!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2014)

doesn't appear to be a fan of the humble bic as far as I can see


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

Unpixelated images here.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Playing the prole card for all it is worth really is a "class act". You're playing a role.


Aren't you going to ask me what job I do?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

A PAT tester?


----------



## Nice one (Dec 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> A PAT tester?


With these hands


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> Aren't you going to ask me what job I do?



Orfully 'umble, sir.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> With these hands



CSCS usually means temp construction then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Brand likes the greens = everyone's worst suspicions confirmed.



We all like a bit of green, but what with him being a 12-stepper, he's probably sublimating his urge by going for a different sort of green...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> He'll give up on the struggles of working class families soon, so he can save the Bolivian arse wasp.



Haven't PD's crack scientists managed to find a solution to the Bolivian Arse Wasp yet?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2014)

funding has largely favoured the High Energy Physics department for some reason


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> Aren't you going to ask me what job I do?



Nope. Any definition of class that's related solely to what job you do is about 100 years out of date, same as any definition that relies solely on what class you're born into.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> funding has largely favoured the High Energy Physics department for some reason



I bet they've been lying about/bigging up their yield calculations again, the buggers!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Orfully 'umble, sir.



Wery wery 'umble indeed.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 22, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Brand likes the greens = everyone's worst suspicions confirmed.


The Greens like him too:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-would-vote-for-the-green-party-9933671.html

I think he's on record as saying the same thing himself (but can't find it) but he adds that he's not a "reformist" who believes in trying to reform things through parliament and laws. Here what he writes in his book:


> When you look at the House of Commons, or Congress, the reason you feel bored and disengaged is because you know it is a masquerade. The exceptions, the Tony Benns and Caroline Lucases, are well-intentioned dinghies bobbing along in an ocean of treachery. That is why I do not vote, that is why I will never vote, let's instead participate in a system that is truly representative.


Of course who knows what the future holds. He could end up a Green Party candidate or MP but so could many others who currently favour "direct action" and "people power" only. I don't see him becoming a LibDem though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> The Greens like him too:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-would-vote-for-the-green-party-9933671.html
> 
> ...


i can easily see him becoming irrelevant.


----------



## Corax (Dec 22, 2014)

Pros and cons, a 'celeb' like Brand setting himself up as a countercultural figure is always going to provoke a broad range of reactions.  The best (and most balanced) summary I've found of his 'campaign' I've found so far has been this, by Steve Wilson.


----------



## gosub (Dec 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> In what way is it constructive?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-be-here-now-without-his-support-9938771.html


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2014)

Corax said:


> Pros and cons, a 'celeb' like Brand setting himself up as a countercultural figure is always going to provoke a broad range of reactions.  The best (and most balanced) summary I've found of his 'campaign' I've found so far has been this, by Steve Wilson.


That link may be the wrong one!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

Corax said:


> Pros and cons, a 'celeb' like Brand setting himself up as a countercultural figure is always going to provoke a broad range of reactions.  The best (and most balanced) summary I've found of his 'campaign' I've found so far has been this, by Steve Wilson.


i think that was the longest 3:47 of my life


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> That link may be the wrong one!


try this one


----------



## BigTom (Dec 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Haven't PD's crack scientists managed to find a solution to the Bolivian Arse Wasp yet?









As this hitherto unreleased still from PD's crack scientists' lab film shows, their attempts to work with wasps proved unsuccesful as the wasps were unable to manipulate the flint on the lighter, continually dropping it and being unable to light the pipe. Thus, the revolution shall not come about by creating a load of cracked up wasps to attack the elite  Our efforts with hornets and ants continue, though many doubt that anything will ever rival the success of the crack squirrels which led to the crack scientist unit being setup.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 22, 2014)

BigTom said:


> As this hitherto unreleased still from PD's crack scientists' lab film shows, their attempts to work with wasps proved unsuccesful as the wasps were unable to manipulate the flint on the lighter, continually dropping it and being unable to light the pipe. Thus, the revolution shall not come about by creating a load of cracked up wasps to attack the elite  Our efforts with hornets and ants continue, though many doubt that anything will ever rival the success of the crack squirrels which led to the crack scientist unit being setup.



Is the mighty boosh a bit of PD cultural subversion or summat then?


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> says the man who fell for cleggmania hook line and 'I agree with nick 'sinker



i don't think you are bright enough to understand , i voted against what new Labour were doing (Iraq/ID cards) not FOR the Fib Dems , they were the least offensive option at the time, if you could believe a word they said, which it turns out you can't , so next time i'm voting green


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> In what way is it constructive?



drawing attention to millionaire tax dodging for starters


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> i don't think you are bright enough to understand , i voted against what new Labour were doing (Iraq/ID cards) not FOR the Fib Dems , they were the least offensive option at the time, if you could believe a word they said, which it turns out you can't , so next time i'm voting green


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> i don't think you are bright enough to understand , i voted against what new Labour were doing (Iraq/ID cards) not FOR the Fib Dems , they were the least offensive option at the time, if you could believe a word they said, which it turns out you can't , so next time i'm voting green


yeh cos they've been really really good in brighton


----------



## elbows (Dec 22, 2014)

From Bin Laden to Bin Strikes, via bin lying to students.


----------



## killer b (Dec 22, 2014)

oh trevor.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 22, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> i don't think you are bright enough to understand , i voted against what new Labour were doing (Iraq/ID cards) not FOR the Fib Dems , they were the least offensive option at the time, if you could believe a word they said, which it turns out you can't , so next time i'm voting green



_If only capitalism was a little bit *nicer* to the trees, and burnt ethical fuel. _


----------



## killer b (Dec 22, 2014)

Here's my prediction for 2020



trevhagl said:


> i don't think you are bright enough to understand , i voted against what the tories and Lib Dems were doing (Cuts/Ebay Charges) not FOR the Greens, they were the least offensive option at the time, if you could believe a word they said, which it turns out you can't , so next time i'm voting labour


----------



## Dillinger4 (Dec 22, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> i don't think you are bright enough to understand , i voted against what new Labour were doing (Iraq/ID cards) not FOR the Fib Dems , they were the least offensive option at the time, if you could believe a word they said, which it turns out you can't , so next time i'm voting green


----------



## elbows (Dec 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Here's my prediction for 2020



The main problem with that prediction is that the greens need to get rather a lot more MPs in order to become a meaningful part of some coalition or agreement to support a minority government, which is likely the only way their word will actually be tested properly in parliament. Its kind of hard to imagine, so they won't be exposed on the national level like the Lib Dems have been.

Obviously they can be tested in the local areas where they've got some power, and the results aren't pretty, but thats going to be easy for many voters looking for a feel good choice in a general election to avoid thinking about.


----------



## coley (Dec 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i can easily see him becoming irrelevant.



Sooner the better.


----------



## killer b (Dec 22, 2014)

elbows said:


> The main problem with that prediction is that the greens need to get rather a lot more MPs in order to become a meaningful part of some coalition or agreement to support a minority government, which is likely the only way their word will actually be tested properly in parliament. Its kind of hard to imagine, so they won't be exposed on the national level like the Lib Dems have been.
> 
> Obviously they can be tested in the local areas where they've got some power, and the results aren't pretty, but thats going to be easy for many voters looking for a feel good choice in a general election to avoid thinking about.


it was more of a comical observation than a psephological thought-piece tbh elbows mate.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> _If only capitalism was a little bit *nicer* to the trees, and burnt ethical fuel. _


----------



## elbows (Dec 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> it was more of a comical observation than a psephological thought-piece tbh elbows mate.



I know but I can't help myself.


----------



## Shirl (Dec 22, 2014)

I've been voting green for a few years now. I got around to joining the party a few weeks ago and it seems a lot more people have been joining recently too


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 22, 2014)

elbows said:


> The main problem with that prediction is that the greens need to get rather a lot more MPs in order to become a meaningful part of some coalition or agreement to support a minority government, which is likely the only way their word will actually be tested properly in parliament. Its kind of hard to imagine, so they won't be exposed on the national level like the Lib Dems have been.
> 
> Obviously they can be tested in the local areas where they've got some power, and the results aren't pretty, but thats going to be easy for many voters looking for a feel good choice in a general election to avoid thinking about.


But what is being "exposed" when parties fail to deliver or do the opposite to what they said? Is it that they are full of hypocrites, self-seekers and traitors or that they have set themselves (and/or been set by those who voted for them) an impossible task, i.e trying to make the (capitalist) system work for the common good or in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers?

What happens in local councils is not really a test of anything since local councillors are little more than elected civil servants who have to carry out the policy of the central government or be disciplined. At the moment this policy is austerity and cuts. So any council, even one run by Greens as in Brighton, has to implement this. If they didn't the central could and would sent in a hit team of commissioners to do this instead. The only defence that a local council can come up with (and which Brighton council and some Labour councils have come up with) is that if they implement the cuts they can soften the blow -- the same argument used by the authorities in Jersey when it was under German occupation.

The lesson is: blame the system and not those who administer it. If you don't do this you maintain the illusion that a different set of politicians could do better. Having said this, parties that do agree to administer the system at national or local level can be blamed for agreeing to do this, even if not for what this involves. Answer: a revolution to get rid of the system.


----------



## killer b (Dec 22, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> But what is being "exposed" when parties fail to deliver or do the opposite to what they said? Is it that they are full of hypocrites, self-seekers and traitors or that they have set themselves (and/or been set by those who voted for them) an impossible task, i.e trying to make the (capitalist) system work for the common good or in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers?


a little from column A, a little from column B


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 22, 2014)

Shirl said:


> I've been voting green for a few years now. I got around to joining the party a few weeks ago and it seems a lot more people have been joining recently too


Natalie Bennetts did a talk down the road a couple of weeks ago. She said 2000+ joined the previous month (November) and quoted a poll where they were given 26% of the vote if people thought they had a chance of winning. Anyone seen it? I may have missed it in the polling thread.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 22, 2014)

Nice one said:


> the sentiments are definitely conciliatory but i'm assuming that's because you are speaking to, and would be working with, the brand supporters from new era/e15.
> 
> But essentially your saying the opposite of what you actually think of brand. You think he's a liability now (who may well change to become an asset) and we shouldn't trust him. Don't you think the new era people/e15 deserve to know why you think that of brand?



It's not the opposite of what I said, its a watered down version because I'm speaking at a hypothetical meeting and not in a semi-private discussion on the internet.  but yes, if we went down the pub afterwards i'd say he's a shark.


----------



## DownwardDog (Dec 24, 2014)

I've just finished reading RƎVOɺUTION and the only thing I've learnt as a result is that Garth Marenghi is definitely not the only author who has written more books then he's read.


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 26, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> _If only capitalism was a little bit *nicer* to the trees, and burnt ethical fuel. _



ah now let me guess, you will be voting for .... no one. So actually for whoever gets in


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 26, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> ah now let me guess, you will be voting for .... no one. So actually for whoever gets in



By that logic, you voting Green is voting for whoever gets in too. Given that they won't be getting in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 26, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> ah now let me guess, you will be voting for .... no one. So actually for whoever gets in


not voting is, er, not voting. it's not voting.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 26, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> ah now let me guess, you will be voting for .... no one. So actually for whoever gets in



I won't be voting for one of Capitalism's touchy feely options. It gets no mandate from me full stop.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Dec 26, 2014)

Russel brands Christmas trews " how to do Christmas for under 10 grand"


----------



## rover07 (Dec 26, 2014)

Christmas Trews. Questioning Capitalism and the Nation State.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 26, 2014)

rover07 said:


> Christmas Trews. Questioning Capitalism and the Nation State.



i'm looking to forward to seeing russell brand doing an incisive analysis of celebrity


----------



## rover07 (Dec 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm looking to forward to seeing russell brand doing an incisive analysis of celebrity



Email him then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 26, 2014)

rover07 said:


> Email him then.


i don't think emailing him will result in an incisive analysis.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm looking to forward to seeing russell brand doing an incisive analysis of celebrity


Sounds as if you missed his Messiah Complex show but you can still watch it online or DVD.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 26, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Sounds as if you missed his Messiah Complex show but you can still watch it online or DVD.


the incisive analysis i seek, is it in this messiah complex of which you speak?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the incisive analysis i seek, is it in this messiah complex of which you speak?


I don't know whether the analysis is incisive but the show was billed as a critique of celebrity culture, so I imagine it was supposed to be. In any event he has discussed the subject.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 26, 2014)




----------



## tufty79 (Dec 26, 2014)

Messiah complex, eh?


----------



## Nice one (Dec 27, 2014)

smokedout said:


> It's not the opposite of what I said, its a watered down version because I'm speaking at a hypothetical meeting and not in a semi-private discussion on the internet.  but yes, if we went down the pub afterwards i'd say he's a shark.



no-one said anything about a meeting - meetings tend to have their own very particular and peculiar dynamics, i wanted to know what you would say to those brand supporters in new era/e15 who'd want brand involved in this conference? And it seems publicly you'd have him on board, privately you'd declare your hostility.

Just for the record - It is the opposite. You think brand is a liability now, this is what you think of brand: he's a liability at this present time (who could become an asset if he changed). What you're telling the new era/e15 people is that he could become a liability (ie he's not a liability at this present time).

No big deal really, more concerning is the fact you're happy to say something to these people in public which is very different to what you'd say to them in private.

But it's not really about brand (he's just a simple conduit in all this, a tool if you will, a weapon) it's about the perception of brand supporters - those so easily taken in (on here in semi-private discusssions) and must be demonised for it, and those in real life who have worked with him on their campaigns, who have nothing but praise for him, and the brand detractors who are giving him way too much credit for the influence he has over these people and thus giving him a status he rarely deserves.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 27, 2014)

96 in the Telegraph's "_Top 100 Britons of the Year_"...



> 96. Russell Brand
> He's the man we all love to hate. But in his most recent incarnation as self-declared man of the common people, Russell Brand has helped reignite the debate about our political system. Controversies about his personal wealth aside, he also deserves a mention for inspiring the #parklife hashtag - one of the funniest of the year.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2014)

god the telegraph discussing the funniest hashtag of the year. farage on a skateboard


----------



## Sue (Dec 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the incisive analysis i seek, is it in this messiah complex of which you speak?


Feel like I'm back at the Hackney Empire...


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


>




who knew Jesus was so tall?


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 27, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> who knew Jesus was so tall?



That's not Jesus. His name is Russell and he is NOT the messiah, he's a very naughty boy etc


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 27, 2014)

*After New Era, it's harder than ever to mock Russell Brand as a hypocrite *
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...han-ever-to-mock-russell-brand-as-a-hypocrite


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> *After New Era, it's harder than ever to mock Russell Brand as a hypocrite *
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...han-ever-to-mock-russell-brand-as-a-hypocrite


Who did. Other than you? Away and hero a union general.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> who knew Jesus was so tall?


the people designing his cross?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> *After New Era, it's harder than ever to mock Russell Brand as a hypocrite *
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...han-ever-to-mock-russell-brand-as-a-hypocrite


you acolytes are reduced to press releases now. From the guardian.


----------



## chilango (Dec 27, 2014)

...the point is still being missed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 27, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> *After New Era, it's harder than ever to mock Russell Brand as a hypocrite *
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...han-ever-to-mock-russell-brand-as-a-hypocrite


but you like a challenge


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 27, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> *After New Era, it's harder than ever to mock Russell Brand as a hypocrite *
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...han-ever-to-mock-russell-brand-as-a-hypocrite


Have you ever seen this?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 27, 2014)

DexterTCN said:


> Have you ever seen this?





LOL

perfect.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

Yesterday's Grauniad has an article about another celebrity comedian who has endorsed a political position: Ricky Tomlinson who endorses the Scargill Labour Party:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/dec/27/ricky-tomlinson-interview-im-a-whingeing-scouser

He was once a member and even a candidate for the National Front in his youth. But he is living proof that people can change and nobody holds this against him. Fortunately, it is not the case that "once a fascist, always a fascist" but of "once a [something], not always a[something]".


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yesterday's Grauniad has an article about another celebrity comedian who has endorsed a political position: Ricky Tomlinson who endorses the Scargill Labour Party:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/dec/27/ricky-tomlinson-interview-im-a-whingeing-scouser
> 
> He was once a member and even a candidate for the National Front in his youth. But he is living proof that people can change and nobody holds this against him. Fortunately, it is not the case that "once a fascist, always a fascist" but of "once a [something], not always a[something]".


Ricky Tomlinson spent 2 years in prison for his principles prior to becoming a national celebrity. Not much of a comparison, is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> *After New Era, it's harder than ever to mock Russell Brand as a hypocrite *
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...han-ever-to-mock-russell-brand-as-a-hypocrite



Yes, thanks for posting a link to a newspaper article, and not adding a word of comment on it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Ricky Tomlinson spent 2 years in prison for his principles prior to becoming a national celebrity. Not much of a comparison, is it?



Quite. He's also explained himself with regard to the NF many times, credibly and creditably IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Interesting bit from that article i was going to post on the edl or UKIP thread just after that last link i posted:



> His memories of his National Front days do nevertheless help him to make sense of Ukip’s rise: “For everyone who’s been out of work for a couple of years, with no hope for a job, and then they see people coming in and working for less than the rate – it must make them angry, and if we pretend it doesn’t we’re kidding ourselves. You see where Nigel Farage is scoring – he’s playing on this. He’s absolutely playing on this. So you have got to talk about immigration, you can’t just attack someone because you disagree with what they say. And when firms advertise jobs in Poland and not here, that’s bang out of order. If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone. And I don’t believe some of the stuff that people in this country won’t work. I won’t have that.”


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

{quote]And when firms advertise jobs in Poland and not here, that’s bang out of order. If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone.[/quote]A bit surprised at those who "like" this statement.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> {quote]And when firms advertise jobs in Poland and not here, that’s bang out of order. If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone.


A bit surprised at those who "like" this statement.[/QUOTE]

Fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

insinuating that the likers are racists?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> > And when firms advertise jobs in Poland and not here, that’s bang out of order. If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone.
> 
> 
> A bit surprised at those who "like" this statement.


Why not tell us why you're surprised.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Why not tell us why you're surprised.


Yeah; presumably its OK to blacklist the workers of an entire country.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 28, 2014)

He probably thinks that not approving of companies requiring agricultural workers in Lincolnshire to speak Polish is some sort of concession to racism or something stupid like that.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

Didn't realise there were so many members of SPEW on here.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 28, 2014)

The only people who think that companies should be allowed to exploit migrant workers in preference to British workers are members of the Socialist Party. My colleagues at the call centre I work at must be very good at keeping their entryism secret...


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Didn't realise there were so many members of SPEW on here.



Seriously. Fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Didn't realise there were so many members of SPEW on here.


Inadequate and rather cowardly reply.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Didn't realise there were so many members of SPEW on here.


What's with the mealy-mouthed implication here? Just say what you're evidently thinking.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 28, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> What's with the mealy-mouthed implication here? Just say what you're evidently thinking.


I think he's trying to tell us he is a Harry Potter fan.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 28, 2014)

I want to hear the reasoning behind what he is saying tbh, if there is any...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

I think it's a mealy-mouthed way of saying that jobs in Britain should go to workers in Britain not to workers from Poland.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 28, 2014)

No reasoning at all then, just a mindless accusation of racism. Fuck off.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 28, 2014)

Which bit of 'jobs available for everyone' are you specifically interpreting as 'jobs for the British'? And why?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

J Ed said:


> No reasoning at all then, just a mindless accusation of racism. Fuck off.


No it's a reasoned accusatiuon of nationalism. I wouldn't have thought you were a racist.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I think it's a mealy-mouthed way of saying that jobs in Britain should go to workers in Britain not to workers from Poland.


It doesn't matter what you think it means - what matters is what you were insinuating about posters on here who liked my post. Have the courage of your convictions - call them racists. Or maybe you could sprinkle some fairy dust on it  and call them nationalists.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> No it's a reasoned accusatiuon of nationalism. I wouldn't have thought you were a racist.


You haven't offered any reasoning. All you've offered is a cheap smear and a terrible shocking misreading of a small quote - whilst managing to miss the reason behind it even being quoted.


----------



## cesare (Dec 28, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Which bit of 'jobs available for everyone' are you specifically interpreting as 'jobs for the British'? And why?


Well, quite. What a cuntish allegation to make.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

cesare said:


> Well, quite. What a cuntish allegation to make.


It's the sort of logic that justifies jim crow laws as being required to combat racial discrimination. It's that back to front. Or  _no irish no blacks no dogs _on the grounds of anti-racism.


----------



## cesare (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's the sort of logic that justifies jim crow laws as being required to combat racial discrimination. It's that back to front.


Yes, exactly.


----------



## FNG (Dec 28, 2014)

it also ignores the fact that in the unskilled and semi skilled labour market gangmasters that recruit overseas have a long track record of exploitation through clawbacks such as charging for accommodation, meals and transport whether the worker uses it or not, failing to pay NI contributions and genrally being a bunch of parasitical scumbags that exploit the inbalance between the employee and employer to the hilt.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

Actually I didn't accuse anyone of anything, just expressing surprise that some here didn't take exception to that passage from Ricky Tomlinson. If it had been said by Farage, a Tory or Blue Labour (as it could have been) I'm sure someone here would have done. Bear in mind also that the SLP, the party Tomlinson supports, declared in its manifesto for the Euroelections in May:



> As a party we are against the uncontrolled movement of labour and capital.



In other words, they are opposed to employers recruiting workers from eastern Europe and want jobs in Britain reserved for workers from Britain, white or black. They are not racist any more than anyone here is. Just nationalist.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

This is what Tomlinson said:



> If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone.



a clear stand against workplace and employment discrimination. You, you rat, turn this is into a smear on other posters for being racist. And you also end up supporting the right of capital to employ who they like when they like on what grounds they like. Buckaroo was right, fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Actually I didn't accuse anyone of anything, just expressing surprise that some here didn't take exception to that passage from Ricky Tomlinson. If it had been said by Farage, a Tory or Blue Labour (as it could have been) I'm sure someone here would have done. Bear in mind also that the SLP, the party Tomlinson supports, declared in its manifesto for the Euroelections in May:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they are opposed to employers recruiting workers from eastern Europe and want jobs in Britain reserved for workers from Britain, white or black. They are not racist any more than anyone here is. Just nationalist.


Tell us exactly what you object to in the anti-discriminatory argument that 'If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone.' please. Forget the SLP sand in the eyes nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yesterday's Grauniad has an article about another celebrity comedian who has endorsed a political position: Ricky Tomlinson who endorses the Scargill Labour Party:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/dec/27/ricky-tomlinson-interview-im-a-whingeing-scouser
> 
> He was once a member and even a candidate for the National Front in his youth. But he is living proof that people can change and nobody holds this against him. Fortunately, it is not the case that "once a fascist, always a fascist" but of "once a [something], not always a[something]".


Interesting. It seems that _you_ cannot let his past go - to the extent of twisting his expression of an anti-racist sentiment into racism.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

I never said he was a racist. Just implied that he was a nationalist. You're the one that's introduced the 'racist' tag and playing it for all it's worth (which isn't much).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I never said he was a racist. Just implied that he was a nationalist. You're the one that's introduced the 'racist' tag and playing it for all it's worth (which isn't much).


You know damn well what your mealy mouthed _nationalist_ means. Let's hear what you have against "If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone." please.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

Why are you pretending not to see the difference between a "racist" and a "nationalist" ? The racist BNP, EDL, NF etc stand for "British jobs for white British workers". The anti-EU left stand for "British jobs for British white and black workers", i.e are not racists but simple nationalists. I'm against both nationalism and racism as they both divide the wage and salary working class against each other. You don't seem to mind nationalism which (not being funny, but genuinely) surprises me as I thought from your other posts on urban 75 that your views were more advanced than this, with some sort of commitment to the world-wide working class.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Why are you pretending not to see the difference between a "racist" and a "nationalist" ? The racist BNP, EDL, NF etc stand for "British jobs for white British workers". The anti-EU left stand for "British jobs for British white and black workers", i.e are not racists but simple nationalists. I'm against both nationalism and racism as they both divide the wage and salary working class against each other. You don't seem to mind nationalism which (not being funny, but genuinely) surprises me as I thought from your other posts on urban 75 that your views were more advanced than this, with some sort of commitment to the world-wide working class.


Explain your disagreements with:



> If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone.



If you cannot then your whole intervention has been a cowardly smear.

And here we have yet another smear thrown in - i don't  mind nationalism, i'm happy to endorse something that you see as being anti-w/c. Well done Jean-luc. The voice of _the advanced_ speaks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

6music, him out of pulp just played an excerpt from the audiobook version revolution'.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 6music, him out of pulp just played an excerpt from the audiobook version revolution'.


Aye. Gave it a minute and then turned the volume down


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 6music, him out of pulp just played an excerpt from the audiobook version revolution'.


I _was _enjoying that programme, albeit pre-recorded.
Now off.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I _was _enjoying that programme, albeit pre-recorded.
> Now off.


It's gone now


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

he was banging on about jesus. ~I like a jesus chat as much as the next person but the book title is...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

OK, what's wrong with


> If there's jobs available it should be available for everyone.


Nothing in the abstract but I don't think anyone thinks that this means they should be available to any worker anywhere on the planet, do they? I don't think Tomlinson meant this, as it follows:


> And when firms advertise jobs in Poland and not here, that’s bang out of order.


I doubt if he wants them to be advertised in Poland at all (let alone in the ILO Gazette), though I suppose he might go as far as to say that they should be available to workers from Poland already in Britain. Anyway, to stay on thread, imagine Brand had said something like this ...

And of course there's the wider picture where under capitalism people's ability to work is a commodity bought and sold on the labour market which inevitably pits worker against worker for the jobs the capitalist economy makes available (or not).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

So there's nothing wrong with the quote but the person who made it is a liar so clearly meant something else entirely and if you agree with him then you're an anti working class nationalist. Fantastic stuff.

And this was the person you brought into the thread as a great example of someone moving beyond nationalism. The person you're now calling an anti working class nationalist.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So there's nothing wrong with the quote but the person who made it is a liar so clearly meant something else entirely and if you agree with him then you're an anti working class nationalist. Fantastic stuff.


I never said he was a liar. He comes across as a decent bloke and I'm sure he was expressing his sincerely held view. After all, he is a supporter if not a member of the SLP (he does some of their election broadcasts) and the SLP is opposed to Polish (and general EU) immigration into Britain.



butchersapron said:


> And this was the person you brought into the thread as a great example of someone moving beyond nationalism. The person you're now calling an anti working class nationalist.


Correction: as someone who moved beyond fascism. And I brought him in as an example of someone else who has had an unsavoury past but who has (rightly) been forgiven.


----------



## JimW (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I never said he was a liar...


But you have chosen to infer something his words don't imply. If he says "for all" why think he doesn't mean that?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

JimW said:


> But you have chosen to infer something his words don't imply. If he says "for all" why think he doesn't mean that?


Because he supports the SLP.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I never said he was a liar. He comes across as a decent bloke and I'm sure he was expressing his sincerely held view. After all, he is a supporter if not a member of the SLP (he does some of their election broadcasts) and the SLP is opposed to Polish (and general EU) immigration into Britain.
> 
> Correction: as someone who moved beyond fascism. And I brought him in as an example of someone else who has had an unsavoury past but who has (rightly) been forgiven.


Excellent. His sincerely held view isn't the one he actually expressed,  but one you've decided that he should hold. 

Of course he's a liar,  he said one thing when he clearly meant something very different which you worked out for him. He's lying about what he really means.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Actually I didn't accuse anyone of anything, just expressing surprise that some here didn't take exception to that passage from Ricky Tomlinson. If it had been said by Farage, a Tory or Blue Labour (as it could have been) I'm sure someone here would have done. Bear in mind also that the SLP, the party Tomlinson supports, declared in its manifesto for the Euroelections in May:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please link to this manifesto and then explain how that line means: "the SLP is opposed to Polish (and general EU) immigration into Britain." - because we wouldn't want any smears now would we?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 28, 2014)

This might have already been mentioned, but the Telegraph have awarded Brand with "The David Icke Award for Contribution to Political Thought". Sums the last 99 pages up then.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

trigger warning: link contains farage


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Really outdone yourself this time Jean-Luc:

A) Ricky Tomlinson says: "If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone"
B) Jean-Luc: anyone who agrees with that is an anti-w/c nationalist.
C) Do you agree with it Jean-Luc?
D) Yes. But that means i'm not an anti-w/c nationalist.
E) Why?
F) Because i was agreeing with the words themselves - everyone else, including the person who spoke them, was really agreeing with something else entirely which is anti-w/c and nationalist. In agreeing with the thing i disagree with i'm the only one agreeing with the real meaning.
G) Fuck off eh.

What a tangled mess you vanguardists get yourself into.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Please link to this manifesto and then explain how that line means: "the SLP is opposed to Polish (and general EU) immigration into Britain." - because we wouldn't want any smears now would we?


Go here and scroll down to item headed "May 2014 - The Socialist Labour Party provides the only full-blooded left opposition to the Capitalist run EU."

Explain how this passage does not mean that the SLP is not opposed to EU immigrationn into Britain:


> As a party we are against the uncontrolled movement of labour and capital and wish to trade with the whole world without EU restriction, especially since as a country we were taken in to the EU under false pretences. We were told it was just to be a trading union, but it has now morphed into a political one. This contrasts with UKIP which believes only in control of Labour movement within the EU and would continue to allow capitalism and big business free rein to exploit workers all over Europe. The single issue parties of the so-called ‘left’ on the other hand are against any restrictions on movement of labour within the EU and as we have seen this is depressing British wages.


----------



## chilango (Dec 28, 2014)

This thread really does highlight the tendency of some to believe that "the norms" can't think for themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Go here and scroll down to item headed "May 2014 - The Socialist Labour Party provides the only full-blooded left opposition to the Capitalist run EU."
> 
> Explain how this passage does not mean that the SLP is not opposed to EU immigrationn into Britain:



So, what you're saying is that there is no European election manifesto at all-  it doesn't exist, you invented it by puffing up a line from the news section of the news section of their website.

No, you have made a very specific claim that the SLP support and promote a racist (not nationalist) policy - namely blanket ban on polish immigration: "the SLP is opposed to Polish (and general EU) immigration into Britain." - they don't support this position - in the manifesto that you so helpfully invented for them (in the same way that you invented Ricky Tomlinson agreeing with this non-existent manifesto and secretly meaning this when he said something completely different) or otherwise. To claim that they do on the basis of this single line ("As a party we are against the uncontrolled movement of labour and capital.") is shameful and you have no ground on which to make it. Stop this pathetic vanguardism and stop the smearing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

chilango said:


> This thread really does highlight the tendency of some to believe that "the norms" can't think for themselves.


Why would Ricky Tomlinson, the SLP, the people who liked my post, me or anyone else need to think for ourselves when we have Jean-Luc and his comrades to do it for us? I mean just look at the last few pages...who wouldn't trust them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Go here and scroll down to item headed "May 2014 - The Socialist Labour Party provides the only full-blooded left opposition to the Capitalist run EU."
> 
> Explain how this passage does not mean that the SLP is not opposed to EU immigrationn into Britain:


jesus mary and joseph 

where in your quote does it say "we're not for accepting any europeans into the uk" or words to that effect?

you thick cunt. if you had any decency or integrity you'd quit this thread now instead of continuing to lie and lie and lie.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

I missed this passage from that same page under the heading "August 2013 - The Capitalist Parties’ drive to force ‘slave labour’ wages in Britain.":


> It is no wonder that the Labour Party has very little of relevance to say these days. Their meaningless drivel concerning the ‘good and bad’ points about ‘Tesco’ and ‘Next’ employment practices cannot mask the fact that the real problem regarding wages is Britain’s continued membership of the EU. ConDem and Labour Party spokespersons have not ceased to pump out the illogical reasons for our continued membership. As a result, we have had unprecedented EU immigration, especially from Eastern Europe, which has had a devastatingly depressing effect upon our wages.


You're on to a looser here. Don't understand why you are so keen on defending a dyed-in-the-wool vanguardist like Arthur Scargill and his SLP.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 28, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I missed this passage from that same page under the heading "August 2013 - The Capitalist Parties’ drive to force ‘slave labour’ wages in Britain.":
> You're on to a looser here. Don't understand why you are so keen on defending a dyed-in-the-wool vanguardist like Arthur Scargill and his SLP.


You genuinely don't realise that I've already won and you've already lost do you. Just by you acting this way.  Making things up, smearing people, telling people they meant something different from what they said and so on.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Making things up, smearing people, telling people they meant something different from what they said and so on.


A bit like you, then, telling me I've been calling people racist.


----------



## binka (Dec 28, 2014)

I like Ricky Tomlinson and enjoyed reading his autobiography when I was given it for Christmas about six years ago (although if memory serves the NF bit was covered in about 2 pages and seemed to consist of him calling them a bunch of weirdos) what I cannot forgive though is going to watch 'Ricky Tomlinsons Laughter Show' at the Stafford Gatehouse Theatre in 2009 as a birthday present from my parents. This consisted of 20 minutes of him retelling his funniest 'telling Cilla Black to fuck off' anecdotes from his book, then half an hour of the worst kind of 70s 'watch your backs lads here comes the poofters' 'you cant say anything any more!' comedian. I left before the interval but was reliably informed the second half consisted of black fucking onyx. i wasn't the only one who left early


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> A bit like you, then, telling me I've been calling people racist.


Is that it? Really? 

You have been calling people racist. I've just exposed your latest lie about the slp arguing for and promoting a racist policy of immediate and total ban on polish immigration.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is that it? Really?
> 
> You have been calling people racist. I've just exposed your latest lie about the slp arguing for and promoting a racist policy of immediate and total ban on polish immigration.


Where did I say that the SLP demanded an "immediate and total ban on polish immigration"? I just pointed out that they are opposed to EU, including Polish, immigration.i wouldn't be surprised if they did think this though (it's the logic of their views as of UKIPs), but why would this be racist (as opposed to nationalist)? I don't even think that UKIP is racist, just xenophobic.

Anyway, point me to where I used the word "racist" in relation to anyone. Or is this just you


> telling people they meant something different from what they said


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Where did I say that the SLP demanded an "immediate and total ban on polish immigration"? I just pointed out that they are opposed to EU, including Polish, immigration.i wouldn't be surprised if they did think this though (it's the logic of their views as of UKIPs), but why would this be racist (as opposed to nationalist)? I don't even think that UKIP is racist, just xenophobic.
> 
> Anyway, point me to where I used the word "racist" in relation to anyone. Or is this just you


i would be grateful if you could point to where THEY said they are opposed to eu, including polish, immigration. but i suppose you'll keep lying and lying and lying, which you show scant sign of stopping.

in addition, perhaps you can share with us the major differences between xenophobia and racism.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

I've quoted you your own words three times now - no amount of wriggling will free you from this hole that you've dug for yourself:




			
				Jean-Luc said:
			
		

> the SLP is opposed to Polish (and general EU) immigration into Britain.



That is, they support and promote a racist policy of ending polish immigration. They don't. To suggest they do is to call them racist. And a clever vanguardist like you should take note that you didn't need to openly call them racist, to use the word racist, to call them racist. And then to extend that smear to firstly, Ricky Tomlinson (_he's a member, of course he supports this racist policy i just invented from a manifesto that i just invented_) then, to posters on here who liked a post quoting his words. That's how smears work. That's what you've been doing.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

Pathetic wriggling as everyone else can see.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Pathetic wriggling as everyone else can see.



Only from you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Pathetic wriggling as everyone else can see.


that's the major difference between xenophobia and racism?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Pathetic wriggling as everyone else can see.


Seriously - _you _invented a manifesto. _You _invented a policy. _You _pinned that policy on the SLP. _You _told people that they are nationalists to agree with a policy that _you _agree with. _You _told RT that he meant something else than what he said, _you _told him he really meant that policy that _you _invented in that manifesto that _you _invented - and _you _then told people who liked my post that this was what they were agreeing with to. I'm embarrassed for _you._


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm embarrassed for _you._


Me too, though I suspect there'll be quite a few here welcoming you getting your cumuppance though who daren't say so for fear on bringing a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse down on them.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

Sorry to kick you when you're down but the Stalinist vanguardists you are strangely defending have form on the question of Polish immigration. Here's a passage from Harry Pollitt's 1947 pamphlet _Looking Ahead_ (it on page 72):


> I ask you, does it make sense that we allow 100,000 of our best young people to put their names down for emigration abroad, when at the same time we employ Poles who ought to be back in their own country, and bring to work in Britain displaced persons who ought to be sent back to their own countries?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Wow. A pamphlet from a totally different party from 70 years ago. It gets even better.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

That really was 'looking ahead'.


----------



## rekil (Dec 28, 2014)

A 'like' from dexter and PMs of support rolling in.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 28, 2014)

copliker said:


> A 'like' from dexter and PMs of support rolling in.


So what?

Butchers posted that I was involved in smearing a woman as a slut and that I was involved in a campaign to drive her from the country.  He's a liar.  Fuck him.  He said this because my opinion was contrary to his on Brand.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Nothing to do with Brand at all, entirely to do with dexter's actual behaviour - have a look at the few pages from here on for example. You'll note the long list of people stepping up to call him a sexist creep.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wow. A pamphlet from a totally different party from 70 years ago. It gets even better.


"Totally different", another exaggeration. I know I shouldn't as this is a thread on Brand but, Butchers, I'm on a roll. So here's my favourite SLP quote on immigration. It's from a leaflet handed out by John Hayball, SLP candidate in the Chessington ward of Kingston in the 2006 London borough elections;


> Racism has sprung out of the hegemony of imperialist society in the Twentieth Century with its large migrations of workers to the metropolitan countries. A socialist immigration policy is required to break this cycle and one that mirrors socialist Cuba. in Cuba nobody is allowed in and nobody is allowed out.


Normally you would have liked it too.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> "Totally different", another exaggeration. I know I shouldn't as this is a thread on Brand but, Butchers, I'm on a roll. So here's my favourite SLP quote on immigration. It's from a leaflet handed out by John Hayball, SLP candidate in the Chessington ward of Kingston in the 2006 London borough elections;
> Normally you would have liked it too.


Amazing. The CPGB is not the SLP. It was never the SLP. Really. It was only established 50 years after that old CPGB pamphlet for starters. Do you similarly think that your SPGB is also the CPGB?

I note you only have your own party claiming this leaflet was handed out to back you up. And we've just seen that you are quite happy to invent things -  manifestos, policies etc then claim others hold them.

And you think that you're on a roll? Seek help.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Me too, though I suspect there'll be quite a few here welcoming you getting your cumuppance though who daren't say so for fear on bringing a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse down on them.


Sorry to piss on your chips, but you're the one looking like a wally here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Sorry to piss on your chips, but you're the one looking like a wally here.


if someone only pissed on his chips he'd be getting off lightly


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> {quote]And when firms advertise jobs in Poland and not here, that’s bang out of order. If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone.A bit surprised at those who "like" this statement.


Fantastic example of Tomlinson's point.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I note you only have your own party claiming this leaflet was handed out to back you up.


You calling me a liar? That would be par for the course. I was present at the meeting of Kingston Racial Equality Council meeting on 21 August 2006 and have a copy of the SLP leaflet in my hand. And here's the proof that John Hayball was an SLP candidate that year.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 28, 2014)

We can't see what's in your hand you daft prick


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> We can't see what's in your hand you daft prick


it's a p45


----------



## cesare (Dec 28, 2014)

I bet it's his cock.


----------



## elbows (Dec 28, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Me too, though I suspect there'll be quite a few here welcoming you getting your cumuppance though who daren't say so for fear on bringing a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse down on them.









Well, no.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 28, 2014)

cesare said:


> I bet it's his cock.



Maybe we should have a poll?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 28, 2014)

So, um, to bring the discussion back on topic -- did any of you read this article?



Diana9 said:


> *After New Era, it's harder than ever to mock Russell Brand as a hypocrite *
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...han-ever-to-mock-russell-brand-as-a-hypocrite


----------



## cesare (Dec 28, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Maybe we should have a poll?


Make it so ...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

I hadn't realise that there was a difference between "cumuppance" and "comeuppance". At any rate Butchers got both.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> So, um, to bring the discussion back on topic -- did any of you read this article?


you can fuck off and all you dull troll


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> So, um, to bring the discussion back on topic -- did any of you read this article?



Yes.



> British writer and comedian Russell Brand was *key to this victory*. *His* support of the campaigners on the ground and on social media led The Independent to describe New Era as “Proof that [*his] revolution *may actually be working”.



Bollux, isn't it?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 28, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you can fuck off and all you dull troll



Wow, your erudition is awe inspiring.  Your mother must be proud.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Bollux, isn't it?



Your opinion, based on cherry picking one passage, doesn't say much.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Your opinion, based on cherry picking one passage, doesn't say much.


You did ask.
Why don't you have a go, then?


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 28, 2014)

Oh good, another 10 pages then


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 28, 2014)

Ok, since reading and comprehension isn't your thing...

Watch this cartoon Dexter posted earlier and see if you can recognize yourselves.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Ok, since reading and comprehension isn't your thing...
> 
> Watch this cartoon Dexter posted earlier and see if you can recognize yourselves.



No, really Diana; rather than re-posting cartoon clips, why don't you (cherry)pick a passage from that Loewenstein piece that would _say much?_


----------



## elbows (Dec 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes.
> 
> Bollux, isn't it?



Quotable bollocks.



> He is convincing a legion of followers that there’s more to life than, “do a gram, drop a pill, download an app, eat some crap, get a slap, mind the gap, do a line, Instagram, little grope in the cab”. He acknowledges his luck and wealth while constantly taking the piss out of himself. He likes having money but fears losing it.





> Case in point: he is making a documentary about inequality that’s reportedly funded by some of the big bankers he’s going after. Does this neuter his anti-capitalist message? Surely it could instead be seen as a savvy way of culture jamming an establishment that thrives on extravagance.





> So what if people like Brand and Moore are sometimes pompous, or narcissistic, or populist, or inconsistent? Or if they don’t correspond with the cliche of the ascetic Marxist revolutionary? What matters is what these multi-millionaires do with their money.



Yes, thats what matters, sure it is. Especially when encouraged to view his 'audience' in terms of supposing them to belong to a certain generation. Then give that generation a silly name, and suppose that without influentialists like Brand, members of this generation would remain too busy munching drugs and the internet to notice important stuff. And lets try to get away with this sloppy narrative without mentioning that this is at least the third of these so-called generations (baby boomers, gen X, gen Y/millenials) to be indulging in this sort of mix of politics/counter-culture/new age stuff, hardly a new phenomenon.

People writing these articles are part of the problem, their initial enthusiasm for the 'leaderless' protests and uprisings and the levelling potential of the internet having given way to this sort of personality-driven pap. The revolution must not be boring says the article and Brand, perhaps confusing superficial excitations with the prolonged excitement of meaningful change.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Wow, your erudition is awe inspiring.  Your mother must be proud.


my erudition is awe-inspiring. your trollery isn't. your mother must be rather ashamed of your online fuckwittery.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 28, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Maybe we should have a poll?


Or even a Pole


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Ok, since reading and comprehension isn't your thing...
> 
> Watch this cartoon Dexter posted earlier and see if you can recognize yourselves.




I'm suitably chastened by your erudition.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 28, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Or even a Pole


We should definitely Czech that out.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 28, 2014)

elbows said:


> Quotable bollocks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's nothing confusing about it.  An American multi-billion dollar company like Westbrook Partners withdrawing from London's New Era estates, thereby saving the whole community from eviction before Christmas, is very meaningful.  That three women could organize a community to accomplish this is meaningful.  That Russell Brand could use his celebrity to get mainstream attention for what ordinary people can do when they work together as a community is not only meaningful but also sends a message to the powers-that-be.  It's the same message the American patriots sent the British empire when they said:  "Don't tread on me!"

Maybe you have to be an American to understand the meaning.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 28, 2014)

All that Romains is to try and shoehorn some Latvians into this Bulgering sack of Europuns


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> All that Romains is to try and shoehorn some Latvians into this Bulgering sack of Europuns


irish you a merry xmas and a happy new year


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> There's nothing confusing about it.  An American multi-billion dollar company like Westbrook Partners withdrawing from London's New Era estates, thereby saving the whole community from eviction before Christmas, is very meaningful.  That three women could organize a community to accomplish this is meaningful.  That Russell Brand could use his celebrity to get mainstream attention for what ordinary people can do when they work together as a community is not only meaningful but also sends a message to the powers-that-be.  It's the same message the American patriots sent the British empire when they said:  "Don't tread on me!"
> 
> Maybe you have to be an American to understand the meaning.


you seem to have missed the coverage they'd previously in, inter alia, the pages of the guardian


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> irish you a merry xmas and a happy new year



Is this really germane?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Is this really germane?


I'll greer no more of this punnery


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 28, 2014)

Norway can I stand any more of this


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

I think you have misunderstood the mogadishu


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 28, 2014)

Italia what, let's call it a day and we'll say no more


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 28, 2014)

Take this Spain away


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Ok, since reading and comprehension isn't your thing...
> 
> Watch this cartoon Dexter posted earlier and see if you can recognize yourselves.





is this video supposed to show how all the jealous little normal birds won't be nice to the very tall one with plumage? If so it says more than you recon.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Italia what, let's call it a day and we'll say no more


Such slovenly speech.


----------



## rekil (Dec 28, 2014)

I'm finnish with this thread.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

copliker said:


> I'm finnish with this thread.


Oh, estonia a bit of fun ffs


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 28, 2014)

It's a real Turkey


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 28, 2014)

I'm certainly not Hungary for more


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Oh, estonia a bit of fun ffs



Yep, we're all France here


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

cech yourself before you wreck yourself


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 28, 2014)

It's interesting how you all descend into gibberish when substance is called for.  Sort of reminds me of chatbots.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> It's interesting how you all descend into gibberish when substance is called for.  Sort of reminds me of chatbots.


The only substance you need is available on prescription


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> It's interesting how you all descend into gibberish when substance is called for.  Sort of reminds me of chatbots.



I did invite you to show how that article you posted moves the discussion forward. You seem to have ignored that?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

denmark my words...this thread will run and run..


----------



## smokedout (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> That Russell Brand could use his celebrity to get mainstream attention for what ordinary people can do when they work together as a community is not only meaningful but also sends a message to the powers-that-be.



He didn't get the campaign mainstream attention, the story broke nationally when the Benyon family pulled out due to the ongoing pre-Brand campaign.  Richard Benyon is believed to be the UK's richest MP, thats a juicy story for the liberal/left press at the moment.  The fact Brand had been to a recent demo was window dressing to a far bigger story.  Then Westbrook took over and threatened to kick the families out - shadowy US property developers making families homeless at xmas is another big story, and also mobilised lots of people who are interested and active in these kinds of things to take notice, it was all over facebook etc and the demo they had planned looked to be getting big.  Brand went on that demo, and thats where the footage of him arguing with a hack came from.  Suddenly Brand was the story, although behind the scenes, against a backdrop of growing pressure on Westbrook from everywhere and the threat of a sustained and well supported anti-eviction campaign they relented and New Era won.  That it is now being painted as his victory by the press is an example of the criticisms on this thread playing out for real.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2014)

on seeing the punny turn the thread had taken, iran


----------



## rekil (Dec 28, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> It's interesting how you all descend into gibberish when substance is called for.  Sort of reminds me of chatbots.


I haiti when serious threads descend into punfests.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> on seeing the punny turn the thread had taken, iran


no cyprus there


----------



## JimW (Dec 28, 2014)

copliker said:


> I haiti when serious threads descend into punfests.


Myanmar mate were just saying the same.


----------



## FNG (Dec 28, 2014)

USA what you like about brand,Iraq my brains to come up with a better idea,Innuit a good Idea to end this because when all is said indian ,something something Pakistan


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

smokedout said:


> He didn't get the campaign mainstream attention, the story broke nationally when the Benyon family pulled out due to the ongoing pre-Brand campaign.  Richard Benyon is believed to be the UK's richest MP, thats a juicy story for the liberal/left press at the moment.  The fact Brand had been to a recent demo was window dressing to a far bigger story.  Then Westbrook took over and threatened to kick the families out - shadowy US property developers making families homeless at xmas is another big story, and also mobilised lots of people who are interested and active in these kinds of things to take notice, it was all over facebook etc and the demo they had planned looked to be getting big.  Brand went on that demo, and thats where the footage of him arguing with a hack came from.  Suddenly Brand was the story, although behind the scenes, against a backdrop of growing pressure on Westbrook from everywhere and the threat of a sustained and well supported anti-eviction campaign they relented and New Era won.  That it is now being painted as his victory by the press is an example of the criticisms on this thread playing out for real.



Well finally, an intelligent response.  Thank you.

By national you mean England.  I'm over here in California and didn't hear about the New Era until Russell Brand got involved.  I doubt New Yorkers did either, until Brand interviewed the Mayor of New York City, who backed New Era and condemned Westbrook for doing the same thing to tenants in NYC.  Since New York authorities had taken prior legal action against Westbrook, the ball was thrown in in Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London's, court to protect British citizens from the American predator. He subsequently intervened to broker a deal with Westbrook.  So the press Russell Brand brought to bear on the situation had a significant impact on the outcome and emboldens others undergoing the same problems in cities on both sides of the pond to follow New Era's lead and take similar action.

The bottom line is: the story is about people and community action.  Russell Brand is the conduit for that story. I see nothing wrong with that.

Russell Brand's interview with the Mayor of New York City:


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2014)

Kenya stop for a minute Ive got a serious point.

This is what Brand reminds me of, a bit.



> But even this is not all; a further clue is provided by the final moments of di Caprio. He is freezing in the cold water, dying, while Winslet is safely floating on a large piece of wood; aware that she is losing him, she cries: "I'll never let you go!", and, while saying this, she pushes him away with her hands - why? Beneath the story of a love couple, _Titanic_ tells another story, the story of a spoiled high-society girl in an identity-crisis: she is confused, doesn't know what to do with herself, and, much more than her love partner, di Caprio is a kind of "vanishing mediator" whose function is to restore her sense of identity and purpose in life, her self-image (quite literally, also: he draws her image); once his job is done, he can disappear. This is why his last words, before he disappears in freezing North Atlantic, are not the words of a departing lover's, but, rather, the last message of a preacher, telling her how to lead her life, to be honest and faithful to herself, etc. What this means is that Cameron's superficial Hollywood-Marxism (his all too obvious privileging of the lower classes and caricatural depiction of the cruel egotism and opportunism of the rich) should not deceive us: beneath this sympathy for the poor, there is another narrative, the profoundly reactionary myth, first fully deployed by Kipling's _Captain Courageous_, of a young rich person in crisis who gets his (or her) vitality restored by a brief intimate contact with the full-blooded life of the poor. What lurks behind the compassion for the poor is their vampiric exploitation.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Well finally, an intelligent response.  Thank you.
> 
> By national you mean England.  I'm over here in California and didn't hear about the New Era until Russell Brand got involved.  I doubt New Yorkers did either, until Brand interviewed the Mayor of New York City, who backed New Era and condemned Westbrook for doing the same thing to tenants in NYC.  Since New York authorities had taken prior legal action against Westbrook, the ball was thrown in in Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London's, court to protect British citizens from the American predator. He subsequently intervened to broker a deal with Westbrook.  So the press Russell Brand brought to bear on the situation had a significant impact on the outcome and emboldens others undergoing the same problems in cities on both sides of the pond to follow New Era's lead and take similar action.
> 
> ...




so now you credit Boris fucking Johnson with the result? For real?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Well finally, an intelligent response.  Thank you.
> 
> By national you mean England.  I'm over here in California and didn't hear about the New Era until Russell Brand got involved.  I doubt New Yorkers did either, until Brand interviewed the Mayor of New York City, who backed New Era and condemned Westbrook for doing the same thing to tenants in NYC.  Since New York authorities had taken prior legal action against Westbrook, the ball was thrown in in Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London's, court to protect British citizens from the American predator. He subsequently intervened to broker a deal with Westbrook.  So the press Russell Brand brought to bear on the situation had a significant impact on the outcome and emboldens others undergoing the same problems in cities on both sides of the pond to follow New Era's lead and take similar action.
> 
> ...




Brand called the Mayor who called the Mayor who called the investor and the chaps sorted it out - this is vile and a complete misreading of how it played out.  Westbrook fucked up in the face of a solid campaign, sometimes capital overreaches and they did, when even Boris is telling you not to be a cunt then you know you're being a proper cunt.  All these rich men were running round flapping, including Brand,  because of what people did on the ground and what might happen in the future, whether being opportunistic or playing damage control, the rich men were the bit players in the events - the people who saved new era were new era and now you and Brand and Boris are trying to take that away.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2014)

actually to be fair, I'm not sure Brand is trying to take that away, its just whats happening, and I dont think even Boris is either.  But you are.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> so now you credit Boris fucking Johnson with the result? For real?



Do you really, really have a reading and comprehension problem?

Where do you see credit being given to Boris?  He had to be shamed into doing something by the Mayor of New York City.

That's called playing hard ball.  Russell Brand knows the game, you obviously don't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2014)

hardball lol. Brands just flashing a bollock


----------



## elbows (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Russell Brand is the conduit for that story. I see nothing wrong with that.



I'm sure he is a better conduit than, for example, CNN. Thats not enough to get him constant applause here.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

smokedout said:


> actually to be fair, I'm not sure Brand is trying to take that away, its just whats happening, and I dont think even Boris is either.  But you are.



Urban is trying to take it away by posting 102 pages of garbage about Brand, thereby deflecting from New Era which after all the blahblahing on this thread has hardly been addressed until *I* brought it up.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Do you really, really have a reading and comprehension problem?
> 
> Where do you see credit being given to Boris?  He had to be shamed into doing something by the Mayor of New York City.
> 
> That's called playing hard ball.  Russell Brand knows the game, you obviously don't.



you fucking don't.  why do you imagine Boris gives a flying fuck what the Mayor of New York thinks, or that Westbrook give a fuck what Boris thinks? everyone acted in their own self-interests in the face of a crisis, thats how power behaves.


----------



## elbows (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Urban is trying to take it away by posting 102 pages of garbage about Brand, thereby deflecting from New Era which after all the blahblahing on this thread has hardly been addressed until *I* brought it up.



I, I, I


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

smokedout said:


> you fucking don't.  why do you imagine Boris gives a flying fuck what the Mayor of New York thinks, or that Westbrook give a fuck what Boris thinks? everyone acted in their own self-interests in the face of a crisis, thats how power behaves.



Sure, self-interest for a politician like Boris is when another Mayor of a major city publicly points out that he's not doing his job for his constituents.  Self-interest for Westbrook is when they get bad press in every city where they own property and where residents will act to boot them out of their neighborhoods as New Era has done.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2014)

you really dont understand this, and i really cant be arsed, enjoy your cartoon.


----------



## FNG (Dec 29, 2014)

Former Westbrook partners Benyon are still managing the estate on behalf of Dolphin, meet the new boss.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Urban is trying to take it away by posting 102 pages of garbage about Brand, thereby deflecting from New Era which after all the blahblahing on this thread has hardly been addressed until *I* brought it up.


no thats because there is a long running non branded thread about NE stuff, which appeared before Russel got his beatification from mugs.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> no thats because there is a long running non branded thread about NE stuff, which appeared before Russel got his beatification from mugs.



The title of this thread is "Russell Brand on Revolution."

102 pages on what a louse Brand is, and other stupidities, and NADA about the "Revolution."


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> The title of this thread is "Russell Brand on Revolution."
> 
> 102 pages on what a louse Brand is, and other stupidities, and NADA about the "Revolution."


Yeah, it is a subject not really discussed often on Urban. Thank god for russel bringing this hitherto unrecognized subject to our attention


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

smokedout said:


> you really dont understand this, and i really cant be arsed, enjoy your cartoon.



Lame.


----------



## FNG (Dec 29, 2014)

Friday 14 November 2014


> The New Era estate has provided affordable rented accommodation since it was built in the 1930s – some families have lived there for over 70 years.
> 
> It was bought in March 2014 by a consortium in which the Benyon Estate – the family firm of Britain’s wealthiest MP Richard Benyon – was a minority shareholder.
> 
> ...





> First Negotiations with Westbrook began on 20th November after Boris Johnson dispatched his Deputy Mayor for Housing, Richard Blakeway to talks,



on 28th November Brand posts up demand for Boris to take a stand

Friday 19 December 2014


> The Dolphin Square Foundation was formed after the sale of former affordable housing estate Dolphin Square, in Pimlico, was sold to Westbrook Partners in 2005.
> 
> The foundation was set up with the aim of providing affordable homes for rent to low to middle income tenants.
> 
> ...



so in the space of a month one of britains wealthiest MP and property landlord leaves a consortium his mate the mayor intervenes and hey presto they are running things again, old boy network in full effect there.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 29, 2014)

How much money has he put into his revolutionary efforts? Selling a book in the run up to christmas to make even more he could do a lot if he was sincere and put his money where his mouth is. Did he say for instance sell his book cheaply, or was it a hardback? How much is he worth Diana9 do you reckon?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

Humberto said:


> How much money has he put into his revolutionary efforts? Selling a book in the run up to christmas to make even more he could do a lot if he was sincere and put his money where his mouth is. Did he say for instance sell his book cheaply, or was it a hardback? How much is he worth Diana9 do you reckon?



He's giving the proceeds of his book to worthy causes, like drug rehabilitation.

I could care less about his bank account.  Nor should you.

There are more important things to care about.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2014)

like george soros


----------



## Humberto (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> He's giving the proceeds of his book to worthy causes, like drug rehabilitation.



All of it?

And how much is he worth approx? Why live in hugely expensive houses?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

Humberto said:


> All of it?
> 
> And how much is he worth approx? Why live in hugely expensive houses?



why not?  He's earned it by giving people a laugh.  so what. what's it to you?

Petty fucking bullshit.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> why not?  He's earned it by giving people a laugh.  so what. what's it to you?
> 
> Petty fucking bullshit.



Did he give _all_ the profits from his Christmas bestseller to 'worthy causes' as you said or not?

Again, how much is he worth? Ask a few questions and you get snippy. Very weird.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> The title of this thread is "Russell Brand on Revolution."
> 
> 102 pages on what a louse Brand is, and other stupidities, and NADA about the "Revolution."


Do you not think it's worth investigating the bonafides prior to joining in with their revolutionary quest?

Not all revolutions are positive things, they have a nasty habit of ending up with the military jumping in one way or the other, or with a ruthless dictator forcing their way into power, and dissent being crushed.

Personally I couldn't see Russel Brand leading or being significantly involved with any revolution I'd want to support as the chances of it ending up how we might hope it would with him involved would be pretty negligible, and a far greater chance if it did suceed that it'd only do so having been taking over by far more ruthless forces. But mainly that it'd never get past the starting blocks anyway.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Do you not think it's worth investigating the bonafides prior to joining in with their revolutionary quest?



There's nothing to join.



> Not all revolutions are positive things, they have a nasty habit of ending up with the military jumping in one way or the other, or with a ruthless dictator forcing their way into power, and dissent being crushed.
> 
> Personally I couldn't see Russel Brand leading or being significantly involved with any revolution I'd want to support as the chances of it ending up how we might hope it would with him involved would be pretty negligible, and a far greater chance if it did suceed that it'd only do so having been taking over by far more ruthless forces. But mainly that it'd never get past the starting blocks anyway.



I agree that the word "Revolution" is problematic.  Brand's idea of revolution calls for  "democracy."  Democracy in action on the local level, with global implications.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Again, how much is he worth?



A better question would be how much is the Queen worth.  £44 billion the last I read.  What did she do for New Era?  Did she speak out on behalf of the mothers trying to keep a roof over their children's heads?


----------



## fishfinger (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> A better question would be how much is the Queen worth.  £44 billion the last I read.  What did she do for New Era?  Did she speak out on behalf of the mothers trying to keep a roof over their children's heads?


God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> God save the queen
> We mean it man
> We love our queen
> God saves



God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron


----------



## fishfinger (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> God save the queen
> The fascist regime
> They made you a moron


----------



## Nice one (Dec 29, 2014)

smokedout said:


> He didn't get the campaign mainstream attention, the story broke nationally when the Benyon family pulled out due to the ongoing pre-Brand campaign.  Richard Benyon is believed to be the UK's richest MP, thats a juicy story for the liberal/left press at the moment.  The fact Brand had been to a recent demo was window dressing to a far bigger story.  Then Westbrook took over and threatened to kick the families out - shadowy US property developers making families homeless at xmas is another big story, and also mobilised lots of people who are interested and active in these kinds of things to take notice, it was all over facebook etc and the demo they had planned looked to be getting big.  Brand went on that demo, and thats where the footage of him arguing with a hack came from.  Suddenly Brand was the story, although behind the scenes, against a backdrop of growing pressure on Westbrook from everywhere and the threat of a sustained and well supported anti-eviction campaign they relented and New Era won.  That it is now being painted as his victory by the press is an example of the criticisms on this thread playing out for real.



You want to go there with this? Seriously? 




			
				Lindsey Garrett said:
			
		

> I don’t think we’d be here now without Russell Brand's support...   By getting involved he gave us a bigger voice. And rather than taking over, he gave us a much bigger audience to speak to. The amount of publicity that came with him really helped us.



So let me ask you smokedout, are the new era campaigners still getting it wrong over brand's contribution to their campaign?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Ok, since reading and comprehension isn't your thing...
> 
> Watch this cartoon Dexter posted earlier and see if you can recognize yourselves.



I don't think I am doing it right! What I get from the cartoon is that like the big bird, it would be better for everyone if Brand just fucked off.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 29, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I don't think I am doing it right! What I get from the cartoon is that like the big bird, it would be better for everyone if Brand just fucked off.



yup, the chattering little bird tribe would still have their comfy and warm feathers if it wasn't for Big bird shaking them out of their comfort zone. This is true.  But are they better off?

What would they have to chatter about if it wasn't for Big bird?  They'd just be nit picking at each other.

In the end, all you can do is laugh, like Big bird, at the naked absurdity of it all.


----------



## chilango (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Lame.



Can you avoid using that as a pejorative please?

Thanks.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 29, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Do you not think it's worth investigating the bonafides prior to joining in with their revolutionary quest?
> 
> Not all revolutions are positive things, they have a nasty habit of ending up with the military jumping in one way or the other, or with a ruthless dictator forcing their way into power, and dissent being crushed.
> 
> Personally I couldn't see Russel Brand leading or being significantly involved with any revolution I'd want to support as the chances of it ending up how we might hope it would with him involved would be pretty negligible, and a far greater chance if it did suceed that it'd only do so having been taking over by far more ruthless forces. But mainly that it'd never get past the starting blocks anyway.


Actually, Brand addresses this point in his book:


> A lot of other political struggles and social uprisings labelled 'revolutions' are in my mind unworthy of the term, in that they were simply a hegemonic exchange. Whether it's the Russian Revolution, which led to Stalinism, or the American Revolution, that led to corporate oligarchy. The Revolution we advocate ought to have two irrefutable components: 1) non-violence, and 2) the radical improvement of the quality of life for ordinary people.


So, at least he's not a member of Russian Revolution Re-enactment Society.

I think he's using the word to make the point that what is required to get a society in which the resources of the world will be used to meet the needs of the people of the world is the complete ending of the capitalist system of elite control and production for profit. This would make the day-to-day struggles of people to survive within the system (necessary and inevitable as they are as long as the system lasts) a thing of the past. People wouldn't need to do this to try to get even their basic needs satisfied.


----------



## campanula (Dec 29, 2014)

go away Diana- you are an unwanted and irrelevant irritant - go and sip a fucking latte or summat...inane Californians have zero to add to this debate...and your output has been particularly feeble.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 29, 2014)

Brand became aware of the New Era campagin in mid-September and here is his own version of events...



> The 93 families of the New Era estate have achieved an incredible victory against greedy corporations and lazy politicians and *I believe*, and the name of the estate suggests, this is the start of something that will change our country forever.
> 
> When *I first clattered* into Lindsey, Lynsay and Danielle in Hoxton market, East London, bantering, smashing out flyers and hassling shoppers into supporting the campaign to keep their homes, *I had no idea* that *I had inadvertently wandered* into the heart of a truly accessible and exciting movement to oppose pointless government and tyrannical big business.
> 
> ...



hmmm


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 29, 2014)

Some people here show a worrying lack of understanding of freedom of speech and discussion. You can't just tell people to shut up and go away just because you don't agree with what they are saying. Fortunately they are not in a position to enforce this.


----------



## newbie (Dec 29, 2014)

chilango said:


> Can you avoid using that as a pejorative please?
> 
> Thanks.


the old _people divided by a common language_ thing in full swing.  tbh I'm grateful to Diane for bringing her yank sensibilities to this thread.  For all our exposure to them we remain Europeans, Brits and, hereabouts, reasonably communist minded ones at that.  So we're not often served an attempt at the Great Man theory of politics and history. 

And very seldom indeed does anyone suggest that all that's needed to sort out parochial struggles is an American politician to bark out a few orders for British politicians, media, capital and people to follow.

It's good to be reminded, now and again.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 29, 2014)

campanula said:


> go away Diana- you are an unwanted and irrelevant irritant - go and sip a fucking latte or summat...inane Californians have zero to add to this debate...and your output has been particularly feeble.




On the contrary! As Diana has herself pointed out, the Americans have a unique ability to understand the situation which we poor little Britons are unfortunately not capable of. Nor will we ever be, shameless monarchists that we are. Let's think about that now!!  Instead of talking about Russell Brand, let's talk about the Queen, as Diana has demanded, and the Queen's wealth. Ah, if only we could face up to our internal contradictions and find a solution! May we forever be thankful for the Americans, natural leaders and torch bearers for a better form of democracy! Lead us, oh Americans! Impart upon us your wisdom of advanced democracy! Imbue us with the spirt of Boston in 1775, the most revolutionary of all revolutionary situations!!! Not, as some idiot urban gibberish-merchants would have it, a revolt by rich white men against other rich white men to protect the wealth of the aforementioned rich white men in a faraway land where wealth was in large part generated by slavery. No. The other America. The beacon. The path-finder, if you will. Not the missile, I mean. Sort of in a biblical sense. Like Russell Brand.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 29, 2014)

Everyone seems to be missing the point in my opinion. It means fuck all that he doesn't live like Mother Theresa. It means fuck all that he is famous. It means _a lot _that he is a loonspud conspiracy theorist destined to be the useful idiot of people more powerful than him. Whatever short-term victories result from his involvement in campaigns, the long-term impact will be the discrediting of anything he touches.


----------



## caleb (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> So, at least he's not a member of Russian Revolution Re-enactment Society.



Still, suggesting the Russian Revolution wasn't worthy of the name and reducing it to mere "hegemonic exchange" (and suggesting it simply lead to Stalinism), is one of the fucking dumbest things I've ever read.


----------



## caleb (Dec 29, 2014)

Also people who keep pointing out his involvement in campaigns as if a) that makes him good, and b) that makes him one of 'us' - what about the Easeman character Brand is or was chummy with. Fash and involved in the same stuff - he one of us too?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 29, 2014)

caleb said:


> Still, suggesting the Russian Revolution wasn't worthy of the name and reducing it to mere "hegemonic exchange" (and suggesting it simply lead to Stalinism), is one of the fucking dumbest things I've ever read.



If only Brand realised that one of the reasons the Bolsheviks were successful was because they were the most organised. All of this leaderless revolution, occupy lizard, hold hands and sing bollocks is exactly what leaves a space for the more ruthless and organised elements to grasp power in a revolutionary situation. "We're all just vibrating on the wrong frequency. Change the way you think about reality, maaan!"


----------



## FNG (Dec 29, 2014)

Ive yet to see any of team brand adress the point at how quick the non violent revolutionaries clamouring for change at maiden square were brushed aside by counter revolutionary forces of the banderists who were initially allowed to share a platform in the name of inclusivity.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 29, 2014)

caleb said:


> Still, suggesting the Russian Revolution wasn't worthy of the name and reducing it to mere "hegemonic exchange" (and suggesting it simply lead to Stalinism), is one of the fucking dumbest things I've ever read.


I thought that might smoke out the Leninists here and it has. There was a revolution in Russia in March 1917 that ended the semi-feudal Tsarism regime continued to a conclusion in November when the Bolsheviks seized power. Bui it was a revolution that did amount to a change of rulers, from a land-owning nobility to a minority who eventually emerged as a new, state-capitalist ruling class. That Leninism led to Stalinism is a long-standing view in non-Leninist Marxist and anarchist circles. The dummies are those who thought it was a "socialist" revolution. So Brand was expressing a quite coherent view when he said that what happened in Russia was essentially a "hegemonic exchange", i.e a change of rulers, and to reject this as a model for revolution.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I thought that might smoke out the Leninists here and it has. There was a revolution in Russia in March 1917 that ended the semi-feudal Tsarism regime continued to a conclusion in November when the Bolsheviks seized power. Bui it was a revolution that did amount to a change of rulers, from a land-owning nobility to a minority who eventually emerged as a new, state-capitalist ruling class. That Leninism led to Stalinism is a long-standing view in non-Leninist Marxist and anarchist circles. The dummies are those who thought it was a "socialist" revolution. So Brand was expressing a quite coherent view when he said that what happened in Russia was essentially a "hegemonic exchange", i.e a change of rulers, and to reject this as a model for revolution.



And how does Brand suggest we avoid repeating such a 'hegemonic exchange' come that glorious new dawn?


----------



## caleb (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I thought that might smoke out the Leninists here and it has. There was a revolution in Russia in March 1917 that ended the semi-feudal Tsarism regime continued to a conclusion in November when the Bolsheviks seized power. Bui it was a revolution that did amount to a change of rulers, from a land-owning nobility to a minority who eventually emerged as a new, state-capitalist ruling class. That Leninism led to Stalinism is a long-standing view in non-Leninist Marxist and anarchist circles. The dummies are those who thought it was a "socialist" revolution. So Brand was expressing a quite coherent view when he said that what happened in Russia was essentially a "hegemonic exchange", i.e a change of rulers, and to reject this as a model for revolution.



I'm not a fucking Leninist you mug.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 29, 2014)

caleb said:


> Also people who keep pointing out his involvement in campaigns as if a) that makes him good, and b) that makes him one aof 'us' - what about the Easeman character Brand is or was chummy with. Fash and involved in the same stuff - he one of us too?


This raises a relevant question for those who think that revolution will emerge from day-to-day grass-roots struggles under capitalism. These are struggles to survive within capitalism and can be, and are, supported by people with all sorts of views, including characters like Easeman. And wlth also sorts of axes to grind such as the various Trotskyist and anarchist would-be vanguards. I'd have thought that they were much more of a danger to these struggles than support from a well-meaning if confused and woolly "celebrity" like Brand. The irony is that his views on such struggles(that they should be conducted by the people directly involved) are probably the same as many of his critics here.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 29, 2014)

caleb said:


> I'm not a fucking Leninist you mug.


Apologies. That's good news. What are you then? Why do you think that the Russian Revolution didn't lead to Stalinism when everybody can see that it did?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2014)

104 pages and the spgb/cpgb drone finally gets to the burning issue of the day - and probably the only reason for starting this thread.

Also noticed further confirmation of my poisoning theme this morning - but this time, rather than Brand being weaponised in order to attack other groups/people/networks etc campaigning or even just having criticisms, this time it's the people directly involved in the new era campaign that are used as the weapon to attack others. Brand is the just the door that opens up this possibility this time though.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2014)

Nice one said:


> You want to go there with this? Seriously?
> 
> So let me ask you smokedout, are the new era campaigners still getting it wrong over brand's contribution to their campaign?



I don't know but I've never said Brand contribution to their campaign specifically was detrimental, I think they'd have won without him, and I don't think the coverage that is now emerging in the press about how Brand won it is hugely helpful.  My criticism is of what Brand represents overall, his flaky politics, chumminess with fascists and anti-semites, and the idea that we need celebrity leaders to speak for us - because I dont want Brand to speak for me.  And of course I'd say that to the New Era campaigners if they asked me what I thought.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 29, 2014)

Let's not eh, Jean luc?


----------



## classicdish (Dec 29, 2014)

campanula said:


> go away Diana- you are an unwanted and irrelevant irritant - go and sip a fucking latte or summat...inane Californians have zero to add to this debate...and your output has been particularly feeble.


I disagree. People from anywhere and everywhere in the world are welcome to contribute to these forums. Anyone here is free to discuss events, politics and people in the UK, the US or Timbuktu if they want to, and we should be grown up enough to listen to everyone's point of view and make some kind of decent response, not just tell people to go away based on their nationality, or whether they live in Hoxton, Cambridge or California.   

Russell Brand is calling for a global revolution and does not confine himself to only talking about UK politics. He talks about American topics and people all the time - why shouldn't Americans or anyone else respond to this?

Brand does a lot of work in the US where he is a well known public figure. Westbrook is a US company.

I really don't understand your logic about American people not being welcome on u75 or whatever you are trying to say. Care to explain?


----------



## xenon (Dec 29, 2014)

Are we there yet?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Do you really, really have a reading and comprehension problem?
> 
> Where do you see credit being given to Boris?  He had to be shamed into doing something by the Mayor of New York City.
> 
> That's called playing hard ball.  Russell Brand knows the game, you obviously don't.


you've admitted your ignorance so now's the time to leave the thread


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you've admitted your ignorance so now's the time to leave the thread


I don't understand the logic of this. I'd have thought that if some is "ignorant" they should be invited to stay on the thread so that they could learn something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2014)

newbie said:


> the old _people divided by a common language_ thing in full swing.  tbh I'm grateful to Diane for bringing her yank sensibilities to this thread.  For all our exposure to them we remain Europeans, Brits and, hereabouts, reasonably communist minded ones at that.  So we're not often served an attempt at the Great Man theory of politics and history.
> 
> And very seldom indeed does anyone suggest that all that's needed to sort out parochial struggles is an American politician to bark out a few orders for British politicians, media, capital and people to follow.
> 
> It's good to be reminded, now and again.


you do talk some awful bollocks. weren't you taught kings and queens history at school?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't understand the logic of this. I'd have thought that if some is "ignorant" they should be invited to stay on the thread so that they could learn something.


it hasn't done you any good, so you're in no position to prate on the subject


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Why are you pretending not to see the difference between a "racist" and a "nationalist" ? The racist BNP, EDL, NF etc stand for "British jobs for white British workers". The anti-EU left stand for "British jobs for British white and black workers", i.e are not racists but simple nationalists. I'm against both nationalism and racism as they both divide the wage and salary working class against each other. You don't seem to mind nationalism which (not being funny, but genuinely) surprises me as I thought from your other posts on urban 75 that your views were more advanced than this, with some sort of commitment to the world-wide working class.



You seem to be unable to appreciate that Tomlinson's message has any meaning except the one that you attribute to it. Now, far be it for me to contradict your rather dogmatic interpretation, but to me "If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone" can as easily be read as "jobs for workers *in* Britain" as the spin you're giving it, and that's not racist or anti-internationalist, it's merely a rational statement that British employers be held to some sort of account with regard to their economic exploitation of workers - i.e. have to actually pay employer N.I. contributions etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> He's giving the proceeds of his book to worthy causes, like drug rehabilitation.
> 
> I could care less about his bank account.  Nor should you.
> 
> There are more important things to care about.



He's a dangerous zealot when it comes to drug rehab (with his anti-methadone/substitute cruisade and his one size fits all abstinence is the only way to go obsession) so that doesn't exactly fill me with optimism either. 

Also, if you could care less doesn't that mean you care quite a bit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> A bit like you, then, telling me I've been calling people racist.



You didn't call people racist.
You insinuated it.


----------



## rekil (Dec 29, 2014)

Nice one said:


> So let me ask you smokedout, are the new era campaigners still getting it wrong over brand's contribution to their campaign?


How long are you prepared to hide in them bushes waiting for somebody to blunder into your half-arsed trap?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> A better question would be how much is the Queen worth.  £44 billion the last I read.  What did she do for New Era?  Did she speak out on behalf of the mothers trying to keep a roof over their children's heads?



You're never going to make friends here with that kind of attitude towards our beloved head of state. She opens kids homes and charity hospitals and stuff - you're just jealous cos she does more good than you and her wealth is just an excuse to attack her. I know you yanks are jealous of our glorious incorruptible monarchy but you don't need to show it quite that much.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You didn't call people racist.
> You insinuated it.


No I didn't. You inferred it because you have a different, wider definition of "racist" than me. Or unless you think Poles and East Europeans generally are a "race". Which would be worse.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> No I didn't. You inferred it because you have a different, wider definition of "racist" than me. Or unless you think Poles and East Europeans generally are a "race". Which would be worse.



I for one am grateful to you for shining the light of your advanced consciousness on the issue. Until now I had always assumed 'jobs for all regardless of nationality' was an internationalist demand and that those supporting the right of bosses to only offer jobs to workers of a specific nationality (in this case Polish) were definitely not communists and more likely to be nationalists. You intellectual giant of internationalism.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> to me "If there’s jobs available it should be available for everyone" can as easily be read as "jobs for workers *in* Britain" as the spin you're giving it,


But that was the "spin" I was prepared to give it. It is saying "no jobs to people from outside Britain". Which is what I was objecting to (as anti-internationalist). Migrants from Eastern Europe are basically fellow workers seeking a better life just as migrants from Britain to the US, Australia and Canada or wherever are.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> But that was the "spin" I was prepared to give it. It is saying "no jobs to people from outside Britain". Which is what I was objecting to (as anti-internationalist). Migrants from Eastern Europe are basically fellow workers seeking a better life just as migrants from Britain to the US, Australia and Canada or wherever are.



It isn't saying that at all you massive plum. It's saying jobs in Britain shouldn't _only_ be advertised to Polish workers. And he's right.

But you carry on in your defence of the right of bosses to divide the working class in order to drive down wages.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

smokedout said:


> actually to be fair, I'm not sure Brand is trying to take that away, its just whats happening, and I dont think even Boris is either.  But you are.



Well, you know how it is. People feel threatened by even the *idea* that the _lumpen-proletariat_ might have the capacity to organise for themselves. Far better to attribute shit to members of the _bourgeoisie_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Urban is trying to take it away by posting 102 pages of garbage about Brand, thereby deflecting from New Era which after all the blahblahing on this thread has hardly been addressed until *I* brought it up.



New Era, Focus E15 and literally hundreds of thousands of other causes are a symptom of an over-arching problem. While Brand's engagement may or may not address a few symptoms, his wishy-washy take on politics, his incoherent call for revolution, don't address the over-arching problem, they distract from it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

FNG said:


> Former Westbrook partners Benyon are still managing the estate on behalf of Dolphin, meet the new boss.



Not quite. Dolphin has the final say, and Benyon are now retained agents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> The title of this thread is "Russell Brand on Revolution."
> 
> 102 pages on what a louse Brand is, and other stupidities, and NADA about the "Revolution."



You obviously haven't read the thread, then.
That or you're being a disingenuous halfwit.
Or both.


----------



## FNG (Dec 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not quite. Dolphin has the final say, and Benyon are now retained agents.



I need a bit more convincing about Dolphin TBH, they were set up as a charitable trust after selling their previous holdings to Westbrook, but as their usp is providing affordable housing their application criteria of a joint income of 30,000k seems steep to me it would price most single parents out of the market and a sizeable number of couples too unless both were holding down full time jobs, obviously this doesn't apply to existing new era tennants, but my inner sceptic says its all a bit too cosy.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2014)

FNG said:


> I need a bit more convincing about Dolphin TBH, they were set up as a charitable trust after selling their previous holdings to Westbrook, but as their usp is providing affordable housing their application criteria of a joint income of 30,000k seems steep to me it would price most single parents out of the market and a sizeable number of couples too unless both were holding down full time jobs, obviously this doesn't apply to existing new era tennants, but my inner sceptic says its all a bit too cosy.



It would price me and my partner out and we both _do _have fulltime jobs. what kind of affordable housing provider demands a _minimum_ income?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

Flavour said:


> On the contrary! As Diana has herself pointed out, the Americans have a unique ability to understand the situation which we poor little Britons are unfortunately not capable of. Nor will we ever be, shameless monarchists that we are. Let's think about that now!!  Instead of talking about Russell Brand, let's talk about the Queen, as Diana has demanded, and the Queen's wealth. Ah, if only we could face up to our internal contradictions and find a solution! May we forever be thankful for the Americans, natural leaders and torch bearers for a better form of democracy! Lead us, oh Americans! Impart upon us your wisdom of advanced democracy! Imbue us with the spirt of Boston in 1775, the most revolutionary of all revolutionary situations!!! Not, as some idiot urban gibberish-merchants would have it, a revolt by rich white men against other rich white men to protect the wealth of the aforementioned rich white men in a faraway land where wealth was in large part generated by slavery. No. The other America. The beacon. The path-finder, if you will. Not the missile, I mean. Sort of in a biblical sense. Like Russell Brand.



So basically, what we need to do is to read the works of Thomas Paine, the political thinker and activist who did more to inspire the _bourgeoisie_ of the colonial US to rebel than any other activist of the time?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Everyone seems to be missing the point in my opinion. It means fuck all that he doesn't live like Mother Theresa. It means fuck all that he is famous. It means _a lot _that he is a loonspud conspiracy theorist destined to be the useful idiot of people more powerful than him. Whatever short-term victories result from his involvement in campaigns, the long-term impact will be the discrediting of anything he touches.



I mentioned that possibility about 90 pages ago, comrade.


----------



## FNG (Dec 29, 2014)

^^
one that wasnts to introduce gentrification by the backdoor ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> And how does Brand suggest we avoid repeating such a 'hegemonic exchange' come that glorious new dawn?



He doesn't.
My personal suggestion is "cull the ruling classes and the _bourgeoisie_. Let their G-d sort them out".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

caleb said:


> I'm not a fucking Leninist you mug.



There are *no* Leninists here, that I know of, so I believe that in this case "Leninists" is meant in the perjorative sense that Speebies give it - i.e. "filthy deviationist swine".


----------



## treelover (Dec 29, 2014)

> Drawn in initially by the importance and ubiquity of the cause, housing is the issue of our time, *I was compelled to stay*, as if held by the heart, by a deeper issue, both social and personal. By something *I didn’t even know I was grieving*; the loss of community, our connection to each other.



I like this part of Brands account of how he got involved in N/Era campaign.


----------



## cesare (Dec 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> I like this part of Brands account of how he got involved in N/Era campaign.


Sounds like a load of trite wank to me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> No I didn't. You inferred it because you have a different, wider definition of "racist" than me. Or unless you think Poles and East Europeans generally are a "race". Which would be worse.



Ah, so it's not an issue of your representation, it's an issue of my misunderstanding your representation because I'm not as enlightened as you are.
Spoken like a true dogmatist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> But that was the "spin" I was prepared to give it. It is saying "no jobs to people from outside Britain". Which is what I was objecting to (as anti-internationalist). Migrants from Eastern Europe are basically fellow workers seeking a better life just as migrants from Britain to the US, Australia and Canada or wherever are.



The internationalism you enunciate above is more about the rights of the boss class to exploit the international working class, than the rights of the international working class to "seek a better life". You're effectively saying "the boss class trawling for particularly-qualified workers in Poland, whom they can underpay with regard to the local UK pay rate, is fine, because it facilitates the ability of some members of the international working class to seek a better life".
With internationalist friends like you, the international working class don't need any enemies!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

FNG said:


> I need a bit more convincing about Dolphin TBH, they were set up as a charitable trust after selling their previous holdings to Westbrook, but as their usp is providing affordable housing their application criteria of a joint income of 30,000k seems steep to me it would price most single parents out of the market and a sizeable number of couples too unless both were holding down full time jobs, obviously this doesn't apply to existing new era tennants, but my inner sceptic says its all a bit too cosy.



Sure, I agree that it is "too cosy", but it does mean that the existing New Era tenants will derive some benefit from a more secure tenancy.
As for the whole "affordable housing" farrago, this appears to be a strategy to ensure that new tenants are in work (although frankly with job instability as it is, it's pretty hard to guarantee that you'll never have to claim HB, especially because of rental prices in the SE being fucked).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> It would price me and my partner out and we both _do _have fulltime jobs. what kind of affordable housing provider demands a _minimum_ income?



I suspect, one that's attempting to ensure its' revenue stream.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

FNG said:


> ^^
> one that wasnts to introduce gentrification by the backdoor ?



TBF gentrification is inescapable - the only thing that can be done is to slow it, so that damage is minimalised - and frankly London (all of London) is already fucked as far as creeping gentrification is concerned.
"Back in the day" it used to take 20-30 years for an area in London to reach "critical mass" in terms of gentrification. Areas like Battersea, that were majority working class, with several "islands" of middle-class Professional occupation, took from the early '70s to the mid-'90s to become mainstream "middle class" areas, but that transition time is shortening, sometimes compressing into less than a decade a process that took 2 or 3 decades, and was *still* socially-harmful to the "indigenous" population. How much more harm is this speeded-up version of gentrification doing?

I'm not sure whether Dolphin is doing something that will introduce gentrification by the backdoor, but I think it's entirely possible that the attempts at providing affordable housing while imposing a minimum income requirement will have the effect of filtering prospective tenants, and introducing a "monoculture" of skilled working class and lower middle class residents to Dolphin's housing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect, one that's attempting to ensure its' revenue stream.


one that seeks to prevent the residents coming together again and receiving favourable publicity


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> one that seeks to prevent the residents coming together again and receiving favourable publicity



Entirely possible.


----------



## FNG (Dec 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF gentrification is inescapable - the only thing that can be done is to slow it, so that damage is minimalised - and frankly London (all of London) is already fucked as far as creeping gentrification is concerned.
> "Back in the day" it used to take 20-30 years for an area in London to reach "critical mass" in terms of gentrification. Areas like Battersea, that were majority working class, with several "islands" of middle-class Professional occupation, took from the early '70s to the mid-'90s to become mainstream "middle class" areas, but that transition time is shortening, sometimes compressing into less than a decade a process that took 2 or 3 decades, and was *still* socially-harmful to the "indigenous" population. How much more harm is this speeded-up version of gentrification doing?
> 
> I'm not sure whether Dolphin is doing something that will introduce gentrification by the backdoor, but I think it's entirely possible that the attempts at providing affordable housing while imposing a minimum income requirement will have the effect of filtering prospective tenants, and introducing a "monoculture" of skilled working class and lower middle class residents to Dolphin's housing.




whilst further driving the wedge between skilled and unskilled labour.
By setting an entry threshold that excludes those most in need of affordable shelter,there is shades of the victorian concept of deserving and undeserving poor in their selection criteria


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2014)

FNG said:


> whilst further driving the wedge between skilled and unskilled labour.
> By setting an entry threshold that excludes those most in need of affordable shelter,there is shades of the victorian concept of deserving and undeserving poor in their selection criteria



Well, that does tend to be the primary effect of this shift in language that residualises social housing and holds up "affordable housing" as an acceptable substitute.


----------



## campanula (Dec 29, 2014)

classicdish said:


> I disagree. People from anywhere and everywhere in the world are welcome to contribute to these forums. Anyone here is free to discuss events, politics and people in the UK, the US or Timbuktu if they want to, and we should be grown up enough to listen to everyone's point of view and make some kind of decent response, not just tell people to go away based on their nationality, or whether they live in Hoxton, Cambridge or California.



Yes, you are right - it is unforgivable and I apologise. However, I am myself hugely irritated by Diana's refusal to actually engage with many salient posts. I admit to utter bias as I do not and never have cared for RB...but this is largely irrelevant - it is what he is part of - - a commodified celebrity in sly complicity with a voracious media - and these power relations are not addressed.


----------



## Zabo (Dec 29, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> This raises a relevant question for those who think that revolution will emerge from day-to-day grass-roots struggles under capitalism.



Not on this decrepit lump of rock it won't. Most of the struggles consist of getting the right angle for a so called 'selfie on a stick'.

A pretend revolution may happen on such forums as this where people nit pick every word and utterance and thus end up totally incapable of having enough strength to get up and go for a piss let alone be part of a revolution.

Sorry to disappoint you Jean-Luc. You will achieve more by tying your hands behind your back, inserting a fine needle in your mouth and picking the seeds out of a mega sized pomegranate.

Have a great  and idealistic New Year.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 30, 2014)

Flavour said:


> On the contrary! As Diana has herself pointed out, the Americans have a unique ability to understand the situation which we poor little Britons are unfortunately not capable of. Nor will we ever be, shameless monarchists that we are. Let's think about that now!!  Instead of talking about Russell Brand, let's talk about the Queen, as Diana has demanded, and the Queen's wealth. Ah, if only we could face up to our internal contradictions and find a solution! May we forever be thankful for the Americans, natural leaders and torch bearers for a better form of democracy! Lead us, oh Americans! Impart upon us your wisdom of advanced democracy! Imbue us with the spirt of Boston in 1775, the most revolutionary of all revolutionary situations!!! Not, as some idiot urban gibberish-merchants would have it, a revolt by rich white men against other rich white men to protect the wealth of the aforementioned rich white men in a faraway land where wealth was in large part generated by slavery. No. The other America. The beacon. The path-finder, if you will. Not the missile, I mean. Sort of in a biblical sense. Like Russell Brand.



Aside from the sarcasm, most of what you wrote is actually historically accurate.

The one part you've missed, however, is that the "natural leader and torch bearer for a better form of democracy," wasn't an "American" at all.  The real pathfinder, as I'm sure you know, was an Englishman (you should be proud).  While the rich white men in the Continental Congress were sending Olive Branch petitions to make nice with the King, a penniless working class bloke fresh off the boat from England named Thomas Paine was writing the pamphlet that would become the clarion call for independence from the British Empire -- the same Thomas Paine who tried to bring the revolution against the monarchy to England, only to be condemned to death and run off by a mob.  Two hundred years later, Russell Brand is being reviled by many of his own countrymen for resounding the call for revolution much as Paine was then. If you don't see the irony perhaps you're too close to the problem to get the full picture.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You're never going to make friends here with that kind of attitude towards our beloved head of state. She opens kids homes and charity hospitals and stuff - you're just jealous cos she does more good than you and her wealth is just an excuse to attack her. I know you yanks are jealous of our glorious incorruptible monarchy but you don't need to show it quite that much.



I'm not here to make friends. 

When people complain _ad nauseum_ about Russell Brand's bank account ("how much is he worth," "who is he to stand up with regular people, he's not one of us, he's a rich celebrity!"), it's only fair to point out that the Queen you so love is a bigger celebrity than Brand and 44 billion richer.  Furthermore, you resent Brand because he earned his wealth, while you accept without question that the Queen's wealth is inherited and that she is the biggest welfare recipient of the people's tax money.  You have been so profoundly indoctrinated by the oligarchs who have ruled over your country for hundreds of years that you don't even know the depth of your subjugation, and you project this onto anyone who, like Russell Brand, a commoner from a working class family like yourself, has the temerity to think people deserve better.  Those who rule over you want you to feel inferior to hold you in check and to do their social policing for them. Their pomp and self-importance conspires to prevent you from thinking you deserve better for yourself, lest you rise up against your oppressors, and you'll only attack and vilify those who try to liberate your mind from oppression.  Thomas Paine tried over two-hundred years ago, Russell Brand is trying now, only to receive the same hateful vilification from his countrymen.  

_"John Lydon, erstwhile of the Sex Pistols, once said of his state education that it seemed to primarily be the installation of a belief system that placed his generation and class at the bottom of an immovable hierarchal structure." - Russell Brand on parliament:  'The whole joint is a deeply encoded temple of hegemonic power"_

It's very odd, and yet strangely fascinating to observe this from an American vantage point.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 30, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I'm not here to make friends.
> 
> When people complain _ad nauseum_ about Russell Brand's bank account ("how much is he worth," "who is he to stand up with regular people, he's not one of us, he's a rich celebrity!"), it's only fair to point out that the Queen you so love is a bigger celebrity than Brand and 44 billion richer.  Furthermore, you resent Brand because he earned his wealth, while you accept without question that the Queen's wealth is inherited and that she is the biggest welfare recipient of the people's tax money.  You have been so profoundly indoctrinated by the oligarchs who have ruled over your country for hundreds of years that you don't even know the depth of your subjugation, and you project this onto anyone who, like Russell Brand, a commoner from a working class family like yourself, has the temerity to think people deserve better.  Those who rule over you want you to feel inferior to hold you in check and to do their social policing for them. Their pomp and self-importance conspires to prevent you from thinking you deserve better for yourself, lest you rise up against your oppressors, and you'll only attack and vilify those who try to liberate your mind from oppression.  Thomas Paine tried over two-hundred years ago, Russell Brand is trying now, only to receive the same hateful vilification from his countrymen.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that. I think everyone here will have a long think after reading that. Perhaps some will even revise their image of the Queen as a kindly grandmother. Now I think about I've never seen her on a demo or anything. Ever feel like you've been cheated?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 30, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> Thanks for that. I think everyone here will have a long think after reading that. Perhaps some will even revise their image of the Queen as a kindly grandmother. Now I think about I've never seen her on a demo or anything. Ever feel like you've been cheated?



I have nothing personally against the Queen, or her family.  I'm sure they're all very nice people.  They try to do the best they can within the paradigm they were born into.  They try to help with charity work (though much of that is PR), and I believe they sincerely devote themselves to fulfilling their duty.  The problem isn't personal, it's the system.  A system that holds people down.

You asked, "ever feel like you've been cheated?"  Have we ever!  We were cheated when the bankers and slave owners in patriot's clothing hijacked the Revolution from the good people who fought for it, to serve the rich elite.  It took almost a century to rid ourselves of slavery, and it took a bloody war to do it.  It took even longer to finally get the Civil Rights Act passed, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, and social security for the elderly.  But the corporate oligarchs still rule this nation and we have yet to liberate ourselves from them.

Time for a change. How to go about it is the big question.  I believe Russell Brand has the right idea, "Creative, local, direct action is the answer."  It's a good place to start.


----------



## chilango (Dec 30, 2014)

This is great stuff


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The internationalism you enunciate above is more about the rights of the boss class to exploit the international working class, than the rights of the international working class to "seek a better life". You're effectively saying "the boss class trawling for particularly-qualified workers in Poland, whom they can underpay with regard to the local UK pay rate, is fine, because it facilitates the ability of some members of the international working class to seek a better life".
> With internationalist friends like you, the international working class don't need any enemies!


That's not what I was saying of course. I was questioning the legitimacy of the slogan "British jobs for people already *in* Britain". It seemed to me to a bit dubious. It's not "racist" (since there are people of all "races" already in Britain) and it's not as bad as "British jobs for British workers" (since there are already non-British workers in Britain) but it seems to me that there is still something wrong with it. It is certainly not internationalist. If employers are doing what you say then the way to deal with it would be international trade union action between trade unions in Britain and Poland.

To tell the truth, I'm genuinely surprised that the current anti-immigration hysteria seems to have affected some people here and with your lack of sympathy with fellow workers from other parts of the world seeking a better life. After all, there are millions of workers in Britain who are the descendants of people who came from Ireland, the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent who came here for that reason, some of them recruited directly from abroad.

Anyway, this is veering off topic and should probably be the subject of a separate thread.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 30, 2014)

Would the separate thread be titled 'Stuff I reckon and make up that means the opposite of what people actually say'?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 30, 2014)

Oh wow, an American slacktivist has come on a UK board and compared Russell Brand to Thomas Paine. 
I have completed the internet.


----------



## JimW (Dec 30, 2014)

Did Tom Paine ever write letters bragging about sleeping with someone's granddaughter though?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 30, 2014)

JimW said:


> Did Tom Paine ever write letters bragging about sleeping with someone's granddaughter though?



Don't think so, but some of those goth routines he did about Chavs with Noel Fielding were hilarious. Ahead of his time.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 30, 2014)

JimW said:


> Did Tom Paine ever write letters bragging about sleeping with someone's granddaughter though?


He kept sending slanderous pigeons to Burke


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> And how does Brand suggest we avoid repeating such a 'hegemonic exchange' come that glorious new dawn?


Here, for what it's worth, is how he opens chapter 31 of his book


> Of the succesful revolutions we've thus far discussed, the one we ought most to emulate is the Spanish Revolution. One thing we don't want to do is replace one ruling class with another; we want power to be shared, not concentrated, and the role of the diminished state to be administrative and responsible. The means by which we achieve this, too, is important. Perhaps there is a corollary between the violence that brings about Revolution and the corruption that tends to follow.


----------



## maomao (Dec 30, 2014)

Well Diana9 has made me reassess my opinion of the royal family completely. I'm going to go home and burn all my royal wedding memorabilia tonight.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> When people complain _ad nauseum_ about Russell Brand's bank account ("how much is he worth," "who is he to stand up with regular people, he's not one of us, he's a rich celebrity!"), it's only fair to point out that the Queen you so love is a bigger celebrity than Brand and 44 billion richer.  Furthermore, you resent Brand because he earned his wealth, while you accept without question that the Queen's wealth is inherited and that she is the biggest welfare recipient of the people's tax money.  You have been so profoundly indoctrinated by the oligarchs who have ruled over your country for hundreds of years that you don't even know the depth of your subjugation, and you project this onto anyone who, like Russell Brand, a commoner from a working class family like yourself, has the temerity to think people deserve better.  Those who rule over you want you to feel inferior to hold you in check and to do their social policing for them. Their pomp and self-importance conspires to prevent you from thinking you deserve better for yourself, lest you rise up against your oppressors, and you'll only attack and vilify those who try to liberate your mind from oppression.  Thomas Paine tried over two-hundred years ago, Russell Brand is trying now, only to receive the same hateful vilification from his countrymen.



You've got me bang to rights there tbf, the queen is the queen and I'm a cor blimey guv'ner prole cos that's the natural order of things.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2014)

JimW said:


> Did Tom Paine ever write letters bragging about sleeping with someone's granddaughter though?



So you're saying Brand is actually like Paine only a bit better? Paine never wrote a bookywook either. Or dressed up like someone off pirates of the caribean to present a big brother whatsit. In your face Thomas!


----------



## JimW (Dec 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So you're saying Brand is actually like Paine only a bit better? Paine never wrote a bookywook either. Or dressed up like someone off pirates of the caribean to present a big brother whatsit. In your face Thomas!


Sure he was seen in a frock-coat at least.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 30, 2014)

"Queen of our hearts"9 has quickly exposed the world's only monarchist, proletarian democracy sect. Well done to her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

JimW said:


> Sure he was seen in a frock-coat at least.


he was a famous transvestite so more likely seen in a frock than a frock coat. but diana9 makes tp out as an earlier rb whereas the american colonists had been fuming since the 7 yrs war about the defence budget and the navigation acts and er no taxation without representation. it was a long time coming and even when it came it was notable the greater part of north america remained british, as it still is with the wicked witch of the west as its queen.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2014)

So Diane supports (and think brand does too) the American counter-revolution in favour of slavery?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> That's not what I was saying of course...



It doesn't matter that it's not what you were saying. The effect of what you propose is that the boss class would be free to exploit international labour on a scale we haven't previously seen, and all for the sake of what's (IMO) a rather dogmatic interpretation of internationalism on your part.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

I wasn't actually proposing anything just questioning one of the proposals to counter what you describe and which the boss class (or some of them) are doing now, though I've heard that the Labour Party is promising to make advertising jobs abroad illegal if you haven't advertised them first in Britain.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 30, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I've heard that the Labour Party is promising to make advertising jobs abroad illegal if you haven't advertised them first in Britain.



Given that it's very difficult to establish the location of digital media, that sounds like something that would be as difficult to draft and enforce as it would be easy to circumvent. Where did you hear that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Aside from the sarcasm, most of what you wrote is actually historically accurate.
> 
> The one part you've missed, however, is that the "natural leader and torch bearer for a better form of democracy," wasn't an "American" at all.  The real pathfinder, as I'm sure you know, was an Englishman (you should be proud).  While the rich white men in the Continental Congress were sending Olive Branch petitions to make nice with the King, a penniless working class bloke fresh off the boat from England named Thomas Paine was writing the pamphlet that would become the clarion call for independence from the British Empire -- the same Thomas Paine who tried to bring the revolution against the monarchy to England, only to be condemned to death and run off by a mob.  Two hundred years later, Russell Brand is being reviled by many of his own countrymen for resounding the call for revolution much as Paine was then. If you don't see the irony perhaps you're too close to the problem to get the full picture.



Paine wasn't "working class", he was the son of a skilled artisan and guild member, and became an excise agent - a position that required education and the ability to finance your own housing and transport. He had already written (and re-written) his pamphlet before he ever set foot on the boat to America, and it was as widely circulated here as was possible for something banned from publication, and circulated among workers and free-thinkers via Correspondence Societies etc".  I suspect you're mistaking the *official* publication date - i.e. when it was officially published in the US - with when it was first disseminated, which was IIRC about 1772.
Britain had already had a revolution a century and a quarter before that in America, but like that in America it was a _bourgeois_ revolution - the middle classes rebelling against the rights and demands of kings, and ended up re-establishing many of the same tyrannies it purported to end.
Paine wasn't "run off by a mob", he was "run off" by a legal system loaded in favour of the state that could bring broad charges (usually of sedition/seditious libel) on little or no evidence, at a time when the death penalty was as common here as it is in the USA currently. He went to France and did more fine work.

To compare Tom Paine to Russell Brand is to insult Paine and to elevate Brand to a position he hasn't earned.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Oh wow, an American slacktivist has come on a UK board and compared Russell Brand to Thomas Paine.
> I have completed the internet.



It is a *bit* ridiculous, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2014)

JimW said:


> Did Tom Paine ever write letters bragging about sleeping with someone's granddaughter though?



No, but he did apparently send William Cobbett a missive saying "Jimmy Savile bummed your mum", and Edmund Burke a multi-page screed telling him how he'd impregnated all of Burke's female relatives. Typical bloody Norfolk, that is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> He kept sending slanderous pigeons to Burke



Wouldn't you? Burke was the Simon Heffer of his time!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So you're saying Brand is actually like Paine only a bit better? Paine never wrote a bookywook either. Or dressed up like someone off pirates of the caribean to present a big brother whatsit. In your face Thomas!



TBF, Paine was an *actual* privateer for a short while, early in his adulthood, rather than just looking like he'd ripped off the look of someone who'd ripped off Keith Richard's '80s/'90s look.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> he was a famous transvestite so more likely seen in a frock than a frock coat. but diana9 makes tp out as an earlier rb whereas the american colonists had been fuming since the 7 yrs war about the defence budget and the navigation acts and er no taxation without representation. it was a long time coming and even when it came it was notable the greater part of north america remained british, as it still is with the wicked witch of the west as its queen.



"Common Sense" was popular because it enunciated how many people felt, but as you say, it absolutely didn't inspire the revolution single-handedly, and a lot of the discontent was the discontent of the urban middle classes and the rural land (and slave)-owners.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So Diane supports (and think brand does too) the American counter-revolution in favour of slavery?



Pretty much. Of course, that may be due to the ideologically-motivated version of US history taught in the US education system - all surface, no depth.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 30, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I have nothing personally against the Queen, or her family.  I'm sure they're all very nice people.  They try to do the best they can within the paradigm they were born into.  They try to help with charity work (though much of that is PR), and I believe they sincerely devote themselves to fulfilling their duty.  The problem isn't personal, it's the system.  A system that holds people down.



If you could apply that kind of understanding to Mr Brand then much of this thread would be unnecessary. The Queen was born into a "paradigm" this causes problems whatever her personal strengths or failings. Russell was born into a "paradigm" and then fucked and smoked himself into a privileged and in some ways influential position within it. He can like the Queen help out with charity work, activism or whatever.I believe that he is sincere in doing this. I do not believe this is just PR  or at least not to the extent or as cynical as it is with Liz and pals. PR people will be involved  and they will use him the great figurehead to discredit movements he is associated with. The fact that Brand is politically and personally associated with dodgy people, has a history of scandals that have hardly made him a trusted figure and has some dodgy beliefs of his own just increases the problems. The problem as you say isn't personal it is the system. A system that holds people down. There perhaps is a way for celebrities (or ex-celebrities) to be activists or to help in some other way that does less harm than good in the long run. I don't think he has found it yet and if he is sincere and moves away from the dodgy stuff I hope he finds it.


----------



## rioted (Dec 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Paine wasn't "working class", he was the son of a skilled artisan and guild member, and became an excise agent - a position that required education and the ability to finance your own housing and transport. He had already written (and re-written) his pamphlet before he ever set foot on the boat to America, and it was as widely circulated here as was possible for something banned from publication, and circulated among workers and free-thinkers via Correspondence Societies etc".  I suspect you're mistaking the *official* publication date - i.e. when it was officially published in the US - with when it was first disseminated, which was IIRC about 1772.
> Britain had already had a revolution a century and a quarter before that in America, but like that in America it was a _bourgeois_ revolution - the middle classes rebelling against the rights and demands of kings, and ended up re-establishing many of the same tyrannies it purported to end.
> Paine wasn't "run off by a mob", he was "run off" by a legal system loaded in favour of the state that could bring broad charges (usually of sedition/seditious libel) on little or no evidence, at a time when the death penalty was as common here as it is in the USA currently. He went to France and did more fine work.
> 
> To compare Tom Paine to Russell Brand is to insult Paine and to elevate Brand to a position he hasn't earned.


Oh, do fuck off and do something useful with your life.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 30, 2014)

rioted said:


> Oh, do fuck off and do something useful with your life.



Maybe you should fuck off and do something useful with your life.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Given that it's very difficult to establish the location of digital media, that sounds like something that would be as difficult to draft and enforce as it would be easy to circumvent. Where did you hear that?


I think it was on the radio, probably this:


> Speaking in Great Yarmouth, the Labour leader set out plans to stop cheap foreign workers replacing British staff, saying a future Labour government would pass a law to criminalise such behaviour.


Just found it here:


> We will ban recruitment agencies from hiring only from abroad.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 30, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I think it was on the radio, probably this:
> Just found it here:



Job agencies hiring only from abroad is not the same as advertising specific jobs abroad if they haven't advertised them in Britain.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Job agencies hiring only from abroad is not the same as advertising specific jobs abroad if they haven't advertised them in Britain.


Maybe not exactly, but it's the same sort of thing.


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

And losing is the same sort of thing as winning, apparently.


----------



## chilango (Dec 30, 2014)

...although I bet if you started claiming that the Socialist Party of England & Wales and the Socialist Party of Great Britain were "the same sort of thing really" Jean-Luc would be pretty quick to clarify.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 30, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Maybe not exactly, but it's the same sort of thing.


No, it's not. A similar thing would be banning recruitment agencies from hiring in the UK but not from  abroad. The opposite to what they're suggesting but still more similar than what you claim they're saying.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 30, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...although I bet if you started claiming that the Socialist Party of England & Wales and the Socialist Party of Great Britain were "the same sort of thing really" Jean-Luc would be pretty quick to clarify.



Yep!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

OK, so what? Talk about nit-picking. I was just answering a question put by a reasonable poster. Anyway, why not say something about Miliband's promise (rather than the person who mentioned it)?


----------



## chilango (Dec 30, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> OK, so what? Talk about nit-picking. I was just answering a question put by a reasonable poster. Anyway, why not say something about Miliband's promise (rather than the person who mentioned it)?




...because you're careering wildly away from the topic at hand with random, often misleading (or downright falsified) quotes going god knows where in a quest to trap Brand's critics into "holding a nationalist position" ...or something it's hard to tell frankly.

Put yer cards on the table. Let's have it. Where exactly are you going with this in relation to Brand (and/or celebrity figureheads in general)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...because you're careering wildly away from the topic at hand with random, often misleading (or downright falsified) quotes going god knows where in a quest to trap Brand's critics into "holding a nationalist position" ...or something it's hard to tell frankly.
> 
> Put yer cards on the table. Let's have it. Where exactly are you going with this in relation to Brand (and/or celebrity figureheads in general)?


round the houses.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

chilango said:


> Put yer cards on the table. Let's have it. Where exactly are you going with this in relation to Brand (and/or celebrity figureheads in general)?


OK, fair enough. I only brought up Ricky Tomlinson because he was another celebrity comedian who endorsed worthy causes (and had just come up in the papers) to make the point that some of you here were raking up Brand's past and using it against him while (quite rightly) absolving Tomlinson of his. ie that double standards seemed to be being applied.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> OK, fair enough. I only brought up Ricky Tomlinson because he was another celebrity comedian who endorsed worthy causes (and had just come up in the papers) to make the point that some of you here were raking up Brand's past and using it against him while (quite rightly) absolving Tomlinson of his. ie that double standards seemed to be being applied.


you seem to be applying them yourself here.


----------



## chilango (Dec 30, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> OK, fair enough. I only brought up Ricky Tomlinson because he was another celebrity comedian who endorsed worthy causes (and had just come up in the papers) to make the point that some of you here were raking up Brand's past and using it against him while (quite rightly) absolving Tomlinson of his. ie that double standards seemed to be being applied.



Okay.

Leaving aside for a moment that I personally haven't been using Brand's past as the basis for my criticisms...

...there are two or three fairly substantial differences between Brand and Tomlinson.

1) Tomlinson (afaik) isn't putting himself, or being put by others, into the same figurehead role that Brand is.

2) Tomlinson was a longstanding political activist before he became a celebrity.

3) Tomlinson has been backing an established current (and notably an established Party) that has it's own roots, traditions, boundaries, structures etc etc. Unlike Brand, who is "leading" a much more malleable , and in many ways weaker or more vulnerable to "hijack" movement.

I'm no fan of the SLP (or the politics they represent) but it's a very different role Tomlinson is playing there. The criticisms needed are equally different. It's not  (IMO) a particularly useful comparison.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

chilango said:


> . It's not  (IMO) a particularly useful comparison.


yeh. but you have to remember Jean-Luc is out of his depth here.


----------



## FNG (Dec 30, 2014)

The other key difference between Brand and Tomlinson is where as Tomlinson has distanced himself from his past political mistakes, brand invites his to book launches!


----------



## FNG (Dec 30, 2014)

Right about that quote about Brands ideal type of Revolution being modelled on the Spanish revolution, how far would his mystic hippy dippy woo woo non violent philosophy gotten when Frankie, Adolph and Benni sent in the Panzers? A furious letter to the Catholic Worker reminding those at the back not to throw bricks,no doubt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

FNG said:


> Right about that quote about Brands ideal type of Revolution being modelled on the Spanish revolution, how far would his mystic hippy dippy woo woo non violent philosophy gotten when Frankie, Adolph and Benni sent in the Panzers? A furious letter to the Catholic Worker reminding those at the back not to throw bricks,no doubt.


i don't think it would be a furious letter, more a liberal moaning woe is me oh dear i'm dead letter


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

Feigned surprise that the defensive shields powered by the international peace centres of transcendental meditation failed to thwart the modern machines of death.


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 30, 2014)

'...parklife'


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

chilango said:


> Okay.
> 
> Leaving aside for a moment that I personally haven't been using Brand's past as the basis for my criticisms...


I know that your general point is that any celebrity endorsement is counter-productive for grass-roots struggles (personally I don't think it makes much difference either way but I agree with you that those directly involved in such struggles should reject all leaders and would-be leaders)



chilango said:


> ...there are two or three fairly substantial differences between Brand and Tomlinson.


I hold no brief for Brand but in the interests of fairness:



> 1) Tomlinson (afaik) isn't putting himself, or being put by others, into the same figurehead role that Brand is.


I suggest that in participating in SLP election broadcasts he is using his celebrity position to endorse a political point of view.



> 2) Tomlinson was a longstanding political activist before he became a celebrity.


Wasn't Brand always a bit of a hippy protestor even when he was on drugs and wasn't famous? [needs to be checked, as they say on wikipedia]



> 3) Tomlinson has been backing an established current (and notably an established Party) that has it's own roots, traditions, boundaries, structures etc etc. Unlike Brand, who is "leading" a much more malleable , and in many ways weaker or more vulnerable to "hijack" movement.


Maybe, but it could be argued that a freelance celebrity would be less dangerous than one committed to a particular party (eg Vanessa Redgrave and the WRP)?



> I'm no fan of the SLP (or the politics they represent) but it's a very different role Tomlinson is playing there. The criticisms needed are equally different. It's not  (IMO) a particularly useful comparison.


Your position on Tomlinson ought logically be: He's a Celebrity, Get Him Out of Here.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 30, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Actually, Brand addresses this point in his book:
> So, at least he's not a member of Russian Revolution Re-enactment Society.
> 
> I think he's using the word to make the point that what is required to get a society in which the resources of the world will be used to meet the needs of the people of the world is the complete ending of the capitalist system of elite control and production for profit. This would make the day-to-day struggles of people to survive within the system (necessary and inevitable as they are as long as the system lasts) a thing of the past. People wouldn't need to do this to try to get even their basic needs satisfied.



I think I've just figured Brand out from that quote.

Brand's a hippy peace and love idealist.

Thing is, I reckon all revolutionaries would love it if they could have a peaceful revolution. The problem comes when those entrenched in power decide not to go peacefully.


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I think I've just figured Brand out from that quote.
> 
> Brand's a hippy peace and love idealist.
> 
> Thing is, I reckon all revolutionaries would love it if they could have a peaceful revolution. The problem comes when those entrenched in power decide not to go peacefully.



And when others smell opportunity and decide to step into the vacuum. And from the acts of other nations. And disagreements between the revolutionaries. And when those who decide to 'surrender peacefully' later change their mind or become the focus for counter-revolutionary sentiments.

Not all revolutionaries would love it if they could have a peaceful revolution, not least because of these obvious flaws, but also because many forms of revolution consider it necessary to eliminate some of the old guard in rather bloody ways.

I certainly wouldn't consider myself a revolutionary unless the proposed revolution had some bloody good answers to these and other issues. Whether or not we 'need' leaders and charismatic individuals to issue rallying cries, we certainly need a load of bloody good ideas. Wake me when they come.


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

I mean really, here we are with the internet and we rarely even get the equivalent of the sort of stuff FE Smith was pondering in 1930.



> Television would make it feasible to revive the direct democracy of ancient Greek city-states, with the whole population, rather than elected representatives, able to vote on issues. Political leaders would make their case direct to the public. Communication speed would allow votes to be concluded within 20 minutes.
> 
> People would be better informed as advances in psychology, widely taught in schools, would leave them "immune from specious appeals to sentiment and illogical reasoning".
> 
> Smith thought it unlikely the party system would survive in this climate and felt that by 2030 people would be more content with the idea of "rule of experts".



Perhaps people don't want to go there for fear of letting some genie political force out of the bottle. Perhaps it will get out of the bottle anyway due to the inability of existing systems to manage, and a spurt of obvious ideas will then splash over our view.


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

Although Im reasonably sure that most who've ever tried to moderate an internet forum will rightly groan at some of my hints at the potential of the net.

But hey that would be a start, to look at what we can learn about power and human relations from the attempts so far at virtual communities of one kind or another.


----------



## killer b (Dec 30, 2014)

anyone who's read more than three comments on youtube videos should be expert enough on that topic to groan a little...


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

Yes I was just coming to that realisation!


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

Mind you, no matter how many reasons there are to shake our heads at things on the net, its got a way to go before it accrues the same amount of baggage as 'last centuries ideas' (sorry for the crap shorthand).

Cynical and bruised as many of us are, there is likely nothing Brand can say right now thats going to make 'the difference', even if he had a clue. If necessity is the mother of invention, then we are stuck waiting for an excruciatingly long labour to end. I don't think the video I posted earlier in the thread where manic Brand somewhat recklessly hoisted a pregnant interviewer into his arms and walked around was enough to induce labour.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> I mean really, here we are with the internet and we rarely even get the equivalent of the sort of stuff FE Smith was pondering in 1930.


Don't know if this is what you've got in mind but here's someone who argues that Brand is the first revolutionary to make effective use of modern media outlets:

http://www.sickchirpse.com/why-russell-brand-is-essential-to-the-revolution/

Seems a bit abstruse to me but relevant to this discussion.


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

The description you gave of it means I haven't read it yet, because I'd rather rant about other net stuff than the purely media and propaganda angles.

Like if we wish to remain wedded to the concept of the head of state in our brave new world, why not replace them with an app. An app like chat roulette or whatever it was called. A random monarch for 30 seconds at a time.

Hey if Brand gets sick, I'm available. I've got ideas man.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 31, 2014)

rioted said:


> Oh, do fuck off and do something useful with your life.


VPs posts on here are useful enough, thanks.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Paine wasn't "working class", he was the son of a skilled artisan and guild member, and became an excise agent - a position that required education and the ability to finance your own housing and transport. He had already written (and re-written) his pamphlet before he ever set foot on the boat to America, and it was as widely circulated here as was possible for something banned from publication, and circulated among workers and free-thinkers via Correspondence Societies etc".  I suspect you're mistaking the *official* publication date - i.e. when it was officially published in the US - with when it was first disseminated, which was IIRC about 1772.
> Britain had already had a revolution a century and a quarter before that in America, but like that in America it was a _bourgeois_ revolution - the middle classes rebelling against the rights and demands of kings, and ended up re-establishing many of the same tyrannies it purported to end.
> Paine wasn't "run off by a mob", he was "run off" by a legal system loaded in favour of the state that could bring broad charges (usually of sedition/seditious libel) on little or no evidence, at a time when the death penalty was as common here as it is in the USA currently. He went to France and did more fine work.
> 
> To compare Tom Paine to Russell Brand is to insult Paine and to elevate Brand to a position he hasn't earned.



Your facts are skewed.  



> Paine wasn't "working class", he was the son of a skilled artisan and guild member, and became an excise agent - a position that required education and the ability to finance your own housing and transport.



1.  Paine was working class if "working class" means working for a living, as opposed to the privileged upper classes.
2.  Paine's life in England was marked by repeated failures. He was fired from his job as a an excise tax man, took over his wife's business, went bankrupt, almost ended up in debtors prison. 
3.  He couldn't afford his own housing, lived with friends and with his wife's family.  Why do you think he wrote "The Case of the Officers of Excise" to petition for a pay raise? (the petition ultimately brought him to the attention of Benjamin Franklin, who invited him to come to America and became his benefactor).
4.   He had a marginal education, went to Quaker schools until he was 13, couldn't advance beyond that because Quakers where not permitted higher education. 



> He had already written (and re-written) his pamphlet before he ever set foot on the boat to America... I suspect you're mistaking the *official* publication date - i.e. when it was officially published in the US - with when it was first disseminated, which was IIRC about 1772.



Wrong.

He didn't begin to write "Common Sense" until late 1775 (published in January 1776), a year after he arrived from England.  He wrote it on the urging of Dr. Benjamin Rush, after he came to Rush's attention, when as editor of the Philadelphia Magazine Paine wrote his scathing condemnation of the slave trade, called "African Slavery in America." This brought him into the inner circle of revolutionaries (Samuel and John Adams, among them) who were abolitionists and had pressed for independence.  The idea of independence failed to gain traction against the loyalists in the Continental Congress until Paine's pamphlet opened public debate and forced the issue upon them.



> Paine wasn't "run off by a mob", he was "run off" by a legal system loaded in favour of the state that could bring broad charges (usually of sedition/seditious libel) on little or no evidence, at a time when the death penalty was as common here as it is in the USA currently. He went to France and did more fine work.



Wrong again.

He was most definitely run off by a mob (after his indictment for treason).  They chased him all the way to the docks, where he escaped across the channel. Upon his arrival in France he was greeted by cheering crowds and met by the Mayor of Paris.  

The point being, while America and France enthusiastically embraced Paine's revolution against the monarchy, Britain remained loyal to their monarch, and still does to this day.  

Talk about being behind the times!



> To compare Tom Paine to Russell Brand is to insult Paine and to elevate Brand to a position he hasn't earned.



History will only tell if Brand matches up to Paine, whose achievements were nothing less than extraordinary (with the notable exception of England where he failed to mount a revolution against the monarchy).  In the meantime, some comparisons between Paine and Brand are accurate in that both have called for "Revolution," both express ideas in the popular vernacular, both use irreverent humor, both use a medium accessible to all (Paine used pamphlets, Brand uses the Internet), both are reviled for speaking truth to power.  If you read the dirt leveled against Thomas Paine the similarities are remarkable.  "He's a drunk, he doesn't wash, he stinks, he's uneducated."   And most notable of all -- "he fucked a cat..." (I kid you not, they said it about Paine and they say the exact same thing about Brand).

That said, Thomas Paine has been almost completely erased from American history because he's still a threat to the powers-that-be. If Brand can revive some of his ideas and encourage public debate, as he seems to be trying to do, I fully support his efforts and only hope he succeeds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2014)

rioted said:


> Oh, do fuck off and do something useful with your life.



I do and have done plenty of useful things, 
It's always interesting watching you vent your bitterness, but your failure is no-one's fault but your own.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 31, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> The point being, while America and France enthusiastically embraced Paine's revolution against the monarchy, Britain remained loyal to their monarch, and still does to this day.



Liked your post as I respect your effort at argument rather than just posting the 'Trews' or whatever.

Anecdotally I don't think I've ever heard anyone I've spoken to have a good word to say about the monarchy. The ruling class control the media narrative, the right wing press love them. They are a powerful instistution in a small class dominated country. Its perhaps slightly more strict and blatant than America, but you also have people who can't afford healthcare and so on. And a massive prison population. And the death penalty.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 31, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Don't know if this is what you've got in mind but here's someone who argues that Brand is the first revolutionary to make effective use of modern media outlets:
> 
> http://www.sickchirpse.com/why-russell-brand-is-essential-to-the-revolution/
> 
> Seems a bit abstruse to me but relevant to this discussion.




Jesus. Did you actually read that article?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 31, 2014)

that article is worse than one of jean luc's posts


----------



## BigTom (Dec 31, 2014)

vanguardism at it's grimmest.



> Philosophical ideas and critical thinking is very rarely seen to permeate down to these depths of society. Here, people tend to simply consume the popular narrative espoused by the media and care not to think any different. Never have these individuals developed an interest in the actual state of affairs due to the repulsive elitist nature of mainstream party politics.



fucking scum, I think the elitist mainstream parties are not as much of an issue as the elitism displayed in this paragraph particularly.

On the amusing side of the crapness of that article is what the author says about how great it is that revolution is stocked in asda, when I see that as an outcropping of the phenomena of capitalism - what's the word - incorporating everything into itself as a conduit of profit, I see it as a neutralisation of any potential message - asda wouldn't stock it if it was really incendiary, so it must not be in order to get on their shelves, and once you've compromised the message (not sure RB has needed to, as his views might well be liberal enough not to be of concern anyway, I haven't read the book, not interested) then you've lost it really. I just don't see part of a strategy of the destruction of capitalism being borne from tactics that push consumerism, since I would see consumerism ending with capitalism, and the internet is a far, far better way of disseminating information than books anyway.


----------



## seventh bullet (Dec 31, 2014)

That article is fucking awful.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 31, 2014)

Proles are apolitical blank slates who can't stop eating chicken and watching reality tv, we can only pray that in their sheeple slumber they by chance wander towards the right part of the book section in an ASDA superstore


----------



## J Ed (Dec 31, 2014)

If only they went to the falafel shop instead of Nando's... *sighs wistfully at what could be if only the sheeple would wake up*


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Don't know if this is what you've got in mind but here's someone who argues that Brand is the first revolutionary to make effective use of modern media outlets:
> 
> http://www.sickchirpse.com/why-russell-brand-is-essential-to-the-revolution/
> 
> Seems a bit abstruse to me but relevant to this discussion.


and there was me thinking it was subcommandante marcos


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2014)

rioted said:


> Oh, do fuck off and do something useful with your life.


just fuck off and carry on with your useless life elsewhere


----------



## ibilly99 (Dec 31, 2014)

and ain't this the trewth...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

BigTom said:


> ... what's the word - incorporating everything into itself as a conduit of profit, I see it as a neutralisation of any potential message - asda wouldn't stock it if it was really incendiary, so it must not be in order to get on their shelves, and once you've compromised the message (not sure RB has needed to, as his views might well be liberal enough not to be of concern anyway, I haven't read the book, not interested) then you've lost it really. I just don't see part of a strategy of the destruction of capitalism being borne from tactics that push consumerism, since I would see consumerism ending with capitalism, and the internet is a far, far better way of disseminating information than books anyway.



Recuperation - but doesn't always have to take place on level of profit, as you go on to note, the symbolic effects of recuperation are just as important.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> that article is worse than one of jean luc's posts


I struggle to believe that's possible.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 31, 2014)

rioted said:


> Oh, do fuck off and do something useful with your life.


Likewise, sweetie.  I recommend that you spend less time on threads like this and more time on the threads which stop people falling through the cracks and provide ways of getting people back out.  Then you can tell VP to "do something useful".


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 31, 2014)

I'm not sure that the mere fact of being sold in supermarkets is a sign of recuperation or harmlessness. I think I once saw _The Communist Manifesto_ on sale in one (presumably for students of politics at a nearby university to buy). They are just interested in selling anything that they think people will buy and which will bring them a profit. As Marx once pointed out, capitalists don't care whether they are selling bibles or brandy as long as it expands their capital.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'm not sure that the mere fact of being sold in supermarkets is a sign of recuperation or harmlessness. I think I once saw _The Communist Manifesto_ on sale in one (presumably for students of politics at a nearby university to buy). They are just interested in selling anything that they think people will buy and which will bring them a profit. As Marx once pointed out, capitalists don't care whether they are selling bibles or brandy as long as it expands their capital.


And  being sold in asda doesn't itself make a product revolutionary or challenging of the established capitalist social relations.To do that it has to offer a bit more than this book. I.e no one is saying being sold or not sold in asda is what actually counts. Again you miss the point being made.

Anyway, the brandlerites now have Brand as Marx and Paine combined. I think this is a good example of how celeb culture works isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Your facts are skewed.
> The point being, while America and France enthusiastically embraced Paine's revolution against the monarchy, Britain remained loyal to their monarch, and still does to this day.
> 
> Talk about being behind the times!



You really don't know much about british history - radical or otherwise.




> History will only tell if Brand matches up to Paine, whose achievements were nothing less than extraordinary (with the notable exception of England where *he* failed to mount a revolution against the monarchy).  In the meantime, some comparisons between Paine and Brand are accurate in that both have called for "Revolution," both express ideas in the popular vernacular, both use irreverent humor, both use a medium accessible to all (Paine used pamphlets, Brand uses the Internet), both are reviled for speaking truth to power.  If you read the dirt leveled against Thomas Paine the similarities are remarkable.  "He's a drunk, he doesn't wash, he stinks, he's uneducated."   And most notable of all -- "he fucked a cat..." (I kid you not, they said it about Paine and they say the exact same thing about Brand).



Note the bolded *he*.


----------



## chilango (Dec 31, 2014)

Not surprised to see Brand on sale in Asda.

You used to be able to pick up copies of _Socialist Studies_ at the Happy Shopper around the corner from me.



(Obviously not. But I did used to see Class War on sale in newsagents and corner shops in the early 90s)


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2014)

You doubters make me fucking sick...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

Note the demand that 

a) rump ireland be brought back into the UK - presumably by force
or  
b) The orange state be bolstered and bordered from rump ireland

Nasty stuff.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Note the demand that
> 
> a) rump ireland be brought back into the UK - presumably by force
> or
> ...





> *Russell Brand wearing an Anarchy in the UK t-shirt as he heads to his car, after having a late lunch at Gjelina Restaurant along Abbott Kinney Boulevard in Venice, CA, with a group of friends.*


----------



## J Ed (Dec 31, 2014)

lol, that was BNP policy a few years back... maybe still is but no one cares


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Note the demand that
> 
> a) rump ireland be brought back into the UK - presumably by force
> or
> ...


Don't be silly. It's only a t-shirt.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyway, the brandlerites now have Brand as Marx and Paine combined.


For those who don't get the (rather feeble) pun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Brandler

I think the term you are looking for is Brandism.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

Or _branderovci._


----------



## rekil (Dec 31, 2014)

I thought it was a Bandera reference cos of the sort of characters he gravitates towards.


----------



## rekil (Dec 31, 2014)

I am busy eating organic yoghurt btw. Little bit morning activism.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

copliker said:


> I thought it was a Bandera reference cos of the sort of characters he gravitates towards.


You must have been reading my mind.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 31, 2014)

copliker said:


> I thought it was a Bandera reference cos of the sort of characters he gravitates towards.


If that's a reference to the Bandera I'm thinking off (the Ukrainian nationalist fascist), that's another over-the-top criticism. But, I agree, I doubt it was a reference to bandiera rosa. Butchers is not that generous.


----------



## treelover (Dec 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Likewise, sweetie.  I* recommend that you spend less time on threads like this and more time on the threads which stop people falling through the cracks and provide ways of getting people back out.*  Then you can tell VP to "do something useful".




Its only a few people on here who do that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You doubters make me fucking sick...


sorry to see his uk seems to include the 26 cos


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

treelover said:


> Its only a few people on here who do that.



Apart from no one saying the mass of people do that (and i think the mass of posters do so when they can and have the knowledge and experience to do so) you have no idea what goes in on in private or behind the scenes here - never mind the threads that you don't read or only half read. Which makes that a pretty pointless and spiteful jibe.


----------



## treelover (Dec 31, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> For those who don't get the (rather feeble) pun:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Brandler
> 
> I think the term you are looking for is Brandism.



I would like to know why brand is being compared to Brandler, who risked everything, something Brand has not done yet or will, or is it just the similar names.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 31, 2014)

treelover said:


> Its only a few people on here who do that.


How the fuck would you know and what do you do? Ffs
E2a - if you are implying more should then please do dispense your pearls in how we should be doing it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Your facts are skewed.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Paine was working class if "working class" means working for a living, as opposed to the privileged upper classes.



"Working class" *doesn't* mean "working for a living", it's about distance from ownership of the means of production. Paine's father was a skilled artisan with his own business who could afford his son to be educated at a good school. Paine was middle-class. 



> 2.  Paine's life in England was marked by repeated failures. He was fired from his job as a an excise tax man, took over his wife's business, went bankrupt, almost ended up in debtors prison.



He was fired, and then re-hired after petitioning his employers. He almost ended up in debtors prison because he had several thousand copies of a pamphlet printed, and then couldn't sell them, not because his life was riven with financial ineptitude.



> 3.  He couldn't afford his own housing, lived with friends and with his wife's family.  Why do you think he wrote "The Case of the Officers of Excise" to petition for a pay raise? (the petition ultimately brought him to the attention of Benjamin Franklin, who invited him to come to America and became his benefactor).
> 4.   He had a marginal education, went to Quaker schools until he was 13, couldn't advance beyond that because Quakers where not permitted higher education.



He finished his education at Thetford Grammar school, which wasn't a "Quaker school", it was a local public school in the proper sense of the word. The maximum leaving age from most schools (except a handful of schools such as Eton and Harrow that fed pupils to universities) was 14 for *all*. It didn't shift to 15 until the late 19th century, to 16 in the mid-20th century, and 18 in the first decade of the 21st century.




> Wrong.
> 
> He didn't begin to write "Common Sense" until late 1775 (published in January 1776), a year after he arrived from England.  He wrote it on the urging of Dr. Benjamin Rush, after he came to Rush's attention, when as editor of the Philadelphia Magazine Paine wrote his scathing condemnation of the slave trade, called "African Slavery in America." This brought him into the inner circle of revolutionaries (Samuel and John Adams, among them) who were abolitionists and had pressed for independence.  The idea of independence failed to gain traction against the loyalists in the Continental Congress until Paine's pamphlet opened public debate and forced the issue upon them.



"Common Sense" was the result of re-editing a fair amount of prose he'd already written prior to sailing to America. One of his British contemporaries, William Cobbett, remarked on "Common Sense" containing material that had been previously published. Cobbett wasn't pro-revolution himself, but he did read fairly widely to keep himself informed. 




> Wrong again.
> 
> He was most definitely run off by a mob (after his indictment for treason).  They chased him all the way to the docks, where he escaped across the channel. Upon his arrival in France he was greeted by cheering crowds and met by the Mayor of Paris.



In folklore this happened, in reality we know that a bunch of "Church and King" militants (the political descendants of the same idiots who razed Joseph Priestley's house and laboratory to the ground) were *set* on him. They weren't a "mob", they were paid provocateurs, just as they were in the succeeding decades whenever ideas about democracy came up.



> The point being, while America and France enthusiastically embraced Paine's revolution against the monarchy, Britain remained loyal to their monarch, and still does to this day.
> 
> Talk about being behind the times!



Talk about you having such a shallow knowledge of what you're discoursing on that you're making yourself look foolish!
A few points: 
France's monarchy was absolutist (simplistically defined: power over life and death, political power confined to a small monarchic and aristocratic clique, a very harsh tax regime).
The United Kingdom's monarchy was and is constitutional (simplistically defined: no tax-raising powers, no powers over Parliament, little power that could be exerted over the legal process, except the power that *any* member of an elite network, King or President, has)
Loyalty to the monarch is loyalty to an office of the "head of state", not to a person or a form of governance that anyway doesn't exist.
Paine's writings were "enthusiastically embraced" by a significant minority of people across the class spectrum in the UK. "_Samizdat_" versions of his writings circulated for decades before they were officially published here post-"Great Reform" and the partial dismantling of the legal processes that allowed anything vaguely politically-questionable to be classed as "sedition".



> History will only tell if Brand matches up to Paine, whose achievements were nothing less than extraordinary (with the notable exception of England where he failed to mount a revolution against the monarchy).  In the meantime, some comparisons between Paine and Brand are accurate in that both have called for "Revolution," both express ideas in the popular vernacular, both use irreverent humor, both use a medium accessible to all (Paine used pamphlets, Brand uses the Internet), both are reviled for speaking truth to power.  If you read the dirt leveled against Thomas Paine the similarities are remarkable.  "He's a drunk, he doesn't wash, he stinks, he's uneducated."   And most notable of all -- "he fucked a cat..." (I kid you not, they said it about Paine and they say the exact same thing about Brand).



Paine elucidated some very sound reasons for revolution against the monarchy, and some processes to start the ball rolling. Brand has elucidated some reasons for social revolution against capitalism, but has elucidated very little in the way of process. I'd prefer that he did elucidate processes. It's not enough to just vaguely point in a direction and say "oh, that was good, lets do something like that, but with no violence, mmkay?".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2014)

BigTom said:


> vanguardism at it's grimmest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Recuperating?



> everything into itself as a conduit of profit, I see it as a neutralisation of any potential message - asda wouldn't stock it if it was really incendiary, so it must not be in order to get on their shelves, and once you've compromised the message (not sure RB has needed to, as his views might well be liberal enough not to be of concern anyway, I haven't read the book, not interested) then you've lost it really. I just don't see part of a strategy of the destruction of capitalism being borne from tactics that push consumerism, since I would see consumerism ending with capitalism, and the internet is a far, far better way of disseminating information than books anyway.


----------



## killer b (Dec 31, 2014)

treelover said:


> Its only a few people on here who do that.


this just isn't true. Only someone with little knowledge of or engagement with the community here could think that. 

Oh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Recuperation - but doesn't always have to take place on level of profit, as you go on to note, the symbolic effects of recuperation are just as important.



Damn you, you got there 4 hours before me!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2014)

copliker said:


> I am busy eating organic yoghurt btw. Little bit morning activism.



Eating it is acceptable.

Weaving it into sandals, however, usually means that truncheons get drawn.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 31, 2014)

Didn't Tom Paine coin the phrase "My Country is the World". Of course that was at the time that the rising bourgeoisie was still revolutionary and thought in terms of changing the world.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

Which is why PD condemned him for nationalist deviations. Socialism on one planet fffs. Stalinist shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2014)

treelover said:


> Its only a few people on here who do that.



At least in your eyes.
Perhaps it's actually that there are many people on here that "do that", but that they don't do it along the lines you wish them to/their activism isn't channeled in the direction you desire?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> Didn't Tom Paine coin the phrase "My Country is the World". Of course that was at the time that the rising bourgeoisie was still revolutionary and thought in terms of changing the world.


with every post your vacuity becomes more apparent. the bourgeoisie succeeded in changing the world. what have you done lately?


----------



## chilango (Dec 31, 2014)

I thought the SPGB had an entrance exam to precisely avoid this kinda situation?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2014)

chilango said:


> I thought the SPGB had an entrance exam to precisely avoid this kinda situation?


they do


----------



## andysays (Dec 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Which is why PD condemned him for nationalist deviations. Socialism on one planet fffs. Stalinist shit.



Someone needs to get to work updating _Rights of Man_ for the 21st century - suggested title _Rights of all Intelligent Life Forms on all Planets_


----------



## rekil (Dec 31, 2014)

The introduction of an activism "stamps" scheme would wipe out this sort of shitstirring at a stroke.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 31, 2014)

chilango said:


> I thought the SPGB had an entrance exam to precisely avoid this kinda situation?


They do and here's the answer:


> The American War of Independence was a straight fight by the colonial capitalists to win independence from British imperial power. The colonial capitalists orchestrated protests against taxes (Boston Tea Party), to using republican support for the French Revolution as a spur to get frontiersmen to fight the invading British army. Eventually the supply lines of the British broke down and the cost of shipping men and supplies across the Atlantic became so great that Britain sued for peace.


----------



## chilango (Dec 31, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> They do and here's the answer:







> This handbook is not a catechism to be learnt by heart and parroted.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America - Gerald Horne.
_
The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.  

In the prelude to 1776, more and more Africans were joining the British military, and anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain. And in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were chasing Europeans to the mainland. Unlike their counterparts in London, the European colonists overwhelmingly associated enslaved Africans with subversion and hostility to the status quo. For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war.  

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> They do and here's the answer:


No they don't.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2014)

Watching C4 News' short review of the year montage reminded me of this little interaction.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Working class" *doesn't* mean "working for a living", it's about distance from ownership of the means of production. Paine's father was a skilled artisan with his own business who could afford his son to be educated at a good school. Paine was middle-class.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've made some good points.  While it's true Paine didn't go to a Quaker school, the values his father's Quakerism imbued in him had a primary influence on his thinking and writing.  He dropped out of school at the age of 13 to work for his father.  Thus, the point I was making still stands --  his formal education was minimal.  He didn't go to university, and was basically self-taught, like most artisans of the period.  This also influenced his style of writing.  One of the most radical things he did was change the political language of the elite, to make ideas accessible to even the illiterate. 

I'm not going to go over every point, because I see this is just a contest, and I'm not going waste my time nit picking every little detail. 

So I'll only respond to a few points in closing:



> "Common Sense" was the result of re-editing a fair amount of prose he'd already written prior to sailing to America. One of his British contemporaries, William Cobbett, remarked on "Common Sense" containing material that had been previously published. Cobbett wasn't pro-revolution himself, but he did read fairly widely to keep himself informed.



It's funny that you site Cobbett as your source. Cobbett never knew Paine and wouldn't have had any knowledge about when Paine actually began to write "Common Sense."  He's also not reliable because he was one of Paine's arch critics (following Chalmers), who after having a change of heart famously dug up Paine's bones to bring them back to England for a proper burial.

And finally, it is to Brand's credit that he doesn't offer specifics for a revolution as Paine did.  The situation is different and in many ways more complex.  For one, the colonists already had a sense of their own independence from Great Britain, they already had a basis for democratic actions, they had local assemblies, they already knew how to organized massive boycotts, and most important of all, through these early efforts they had already formed communities of trust between the 13 colonies.  Brand has pointed out that community is what is lacking today, and that without it we can't be effective against the mega-corporate structures.  Each community has different needs and problems -- some have rent hikes, others have water hikes, etc., and each community has to decide how best to tackle these problems.  New Era is one example he's highlighted.  He's showing that there are models other communities can emulate.  I think that's a smart approach for him to take and an effective use of his celebrity. 

And with that, I'm done.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America - Gerald Horne.
> _
> The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.
> 
> ...





> _The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others_



Utter bullshit revisionism.

Which Founding fathers?  There were many, divided by North and South.  Most of the Founders were not slave owners, and indeed many were anti-slavery.  Some had formed abolition societies, before, during and after the Revolution.  Most of the northern colonies had abolished slavery, beginning in 1770.  Compromises with slave owning states were made at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1788 when South Carolina and Georgia threatened to seceded from the fledgling Union if the Northern delegates to the Convention insisted on abolishing the slave trade. Thus the Founders essentially kicked the can down the road, and left it to the next generation to fight it out.  I personally can't forgive them for that, and neither can African Americans. They should have called the the Carolina's bluff, because as Dickinson and Gouverner Morris knew then, it was a bluff, if for no other reason than secession would left the Southern states vulnerable to being invaded by Britain or Spain from Florida.  Nor can I forgive them for kicking Paine to the curb after the Revolution was successful so that they could profit from it.  Plus, Hamilton and the Federalist/monarchist/elitists can go to hell for setting up the banking system on the British model, leaving us with the problems of the 1% we face to this day.

And lest anyone forgets, it was Queen Elizabeth I that started the (horrific) slave trade and brought slavery to the colonies, an inheritance that has caused our people, white and black, centuries of suffering.

Thanks for all you've done for us Great Britain!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 1, 2015)

Yeah but now we give you russel brand so you can cheer for him from 100 mile + away!


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2015)

they can have him.  I was much more ambivalent about Brand before Diana started posting, I hate the cunt now


----------



## Humberto (Jan 1, 2015)

So Native Americans and Black slaves  = utter bullshit revisionism? That is not pathetic. Its funny cos you won't aknowledege there have been WC communities to this day with more advanced sensibilities than your efforts.


----------



## panpete (Jan 1, 2015)

I get a feeling that Russell Brand is not to be trusted.
Dunno if this feeling is correct.
I think he is a red herring for truthers, but he may actually be getting paid by big business beast


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 1, 2015)

He is a useless idiot


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 1, 2015)

I read the book, entertaining in places, needed editing  in places but it clearly got edited according to those that read the first edition.

It started of as a love story but that went wrong early on, even if it hadn't his muse was not exactly eloquent; stumbling over her script as she stood trembling under Nelson; she was booed off and had to be consoled by Assange and others i saw it all and it was pathetic, all about her.

You get a sense of that in the reading, it's a bit of a jumble; all over the place. Towards the end is a glowing tribute to  Goldsmith which i found which i was sickened by and then a brief mention of his former lover.

It's an entertaining read for the mass market, i bought it for my sister as a Christmas present and she is a disaffected Tory living in Essex and commuting to the heart of the financial district every fucking day.

Brand is on his own journey, i think he is genuine. A long way behind me and many others on this Board with regards to the political but i like the idea, and it was difficult for me as an atheist, of combing revolution with the spiritual. 

I have always believed a revolution starts from your own being, how you observe the world around you. Politics has to be about who you are and your connections, how you interact with your community; if i'm wrong then it's just a strategic game for assets.

The book had no new political ideas, plenty of personal bullshit, this is a man on a journey that wants books read for him; the basic ideas explained  to him in sound bites. That's how it read politically, spiritually i put up with it and may have learnt something about common unity, community but the whole twelve step thing that pulsed through the book pissed me off.  

I've not read the thread (109 pages) but i have read the book and i was disappointed with it  on many levels. My sister is loving it, maybe that's the value in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2015)

Diana9 said:


> Utter bullshit revisionism.
> 
> Which Founding fathers?  There were many, divided by North and South.  Most of the Founders were not slave owners, and indeed many were anti-slavery.  Some had formed abolition societies, before, during and after the Revolution.  Most of the northern colonies had abolished slavery, beginning in 1770.  Compromises with slave owning states were made at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1788 when South Carolina and Georgia threatened to seceded from the fledgling Union if the Northern delegates to the Convention insisted on abolishing the slave trade. Thus the Founders essentially kicked the can down the road, and left it to the next generation to fight it out.  I personally can't forgive them for that, and neither can African Americans. They should have called the the Carolina's bluff, because as Dickinson and Gouverner Morris knew then, it was a bluff, if for no other reason than secession would left the Southern states vulnerable to being invaded by Britain or Spain from Florida.  Nor can I forgive them for kicking Paine to the curb after the Revolution was successful so that they could profit from it.  Plus, Hamilton and the Federalist/monarchist/elitists can go to hell for setting up the banking system on the British model, leaving us with the problems of the 1% we face to this day.
> 
> ...


You've not read the book,  nor will you. If you had, or even read the reviews, you would not have dismissed the argument as classical revisionism, thus allowing you to trot out the standard shop worn response that you did. And if you had read it,  or the reviews even,  you'd know that the standard and now shop worn responders you chose to post doesn't actually deal with any of the issues raised in Horne's ground breaking book.


Apologies for bursting that nationalist bubble you're riding around on.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 1, 2015)

Diana9 said:


> Plus, Hamilton and the Federalist/monarchist/elitists can go to hell for setting up the banking system on the British model, leaving us with the problems of the 1% we face to this day.



Are you a Paulite as well?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 1, 2015)

That book butchers posted proves that the UK is better than the US and our glorious slave liberating monarchy is better than their slavery loving republic. 

Why do US trendies and followers of political fads always go all weird and nationalist when people don't swallow their crap without question? I remember Malcolm 'paedo' Harris doing pretty much the same.

(In all seriousness, that book looks really interesting - cheers for posting butchers)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He is a useless idiot



The worry for me is that he may become a useful idiot for the very people he decries.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America - Gerald Horne.
> _
> The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.
> 
> ...



Excellent book. I sent a copy of that and a copy of "White Cargo" to a mate who was doing a bit of head-scratching about the class and race issues leading up to the revolution.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2015)

Diana9 said:


> And lest anyone forgets, it was Queen Elizabeth I that started the (horrific) slave trade and brought slavery to the colonies, an inheritance that has caused our people, white and black, centuries of suffering.



What was that you were saying about "utter bullshit revisionism"? Slaves being sold in the colonies (by Portuguese, Spanish, British, French and Italian privateers) was already happening before Elizabeth I was crowned. What Elizabeth did (in, IIRC, the 1580s) was to grant the equivalent of trade licences to British companies that became the foundation of the triangular trade.
Blame Elizabeth, by all means, but don't forget the part the other "Old World" empires played.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jan 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America - Gerald Horne.
> _
> The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.
> 
> ...



Thanks very much for this, proving to be a compelling read.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The worry for me is that he may become a useful idiot for the very people he decries.


That's certainly my take as well...except I'd probably insert "_has_" for "_may"._


----------



## Diana9 (Jan 2, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You've not read the book,  nor will you. If you had, or even read the reviews, you would not have dismissed the argument as classical revisionism, thus allowing you to trot out the standard shop worn response that you did. And if you had read it,  or the reviews even,  you'd know that the standard and now shop worn responders you chose to post doesn't actually deal with any of the issues raised in Horne's ground breaking book.
> 
> 
> Apologies for bursting that nationalist bubble you're riding around on.



Have you yourself read this "_ground breaking_" book? If the review you posted is the premise of the book, i.e., "_that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others'" _then it is flat out wrong, as the facts I've already posted show.  Can you refute those facts? 

Instead you spout empty, condescending rhetoric:

To wit:

"the standard and now shop worn responders you chose to post doesn't actually deal with any of the issues raised in Horne's ground breaking book."

I've pointed out the very opposite.  The shop worn American mythology is all about "The Founders," the great, important men we are taught to revere, centered mainly around two of the founders, Washington and Jefferson, both slave-owners, overlooking the majority of the other Founders who were not slave-owners (or who freed their slaves), and the vast majority of the Patriots who actually fought and died in a revolution inspired by Thomas Paine, whose vision of liberty, equality, and democracy was aborted by monarchists like Hamilton, Adams, et al, and who thus imposed a system built on the British model that still rules over the western world today.

_"Without the pen of Paine_, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain." (Joel _Barlow_, American diplomat and poet).

"_A free America without_ Thomas _Paine is unthinkable_." - Marquis de _Lafayette_

Those words still hold true today.  There would not have been a revolution without Paine  (it certainly wasn't to preserve slavery), and_ t_here is no free America today without the democracy Paine envisioned. There is no freedom in the British Common Wealth, nor in the U.S, nor in Hong Kong, or anywhere else in the world.  We are all oppressed by the same system.   If you would stop wasting your time in idle gossip about celebrity_, _you might begin to understand that the revolution Paine wrote about is the same as Brand talks about and perhaps then you'd be able to use this powerful technology for a greater purpose. 

The revolution as Paine saw it and as Brand sees it is _democracy_ -- _government of, by, and for the people_.  That means people must be awakened to the possibilities for change and become radically engaged.


_
"We have the power to make the world over again" - Thomas Paine_


----------



## coley (Jan 2, 2015)

Diana9 said:


> Have you yourself read this "_ground breaking_" book? If the review you posted is the premise of the book, i.e., "_that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others'" _then it is flat out wrong, as the facts I've already posted show.  Can you refute those facts?
> 
> Instead you spout empty, condescending rhetoric:
> 
> ...



Brand, the modern day Paine,? now I'm as thick as mince when it comes to the modern day 'left intellectualism' but even I can see your stretching it a wee bit.


----------



## Diana9 (Jan 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> What was that you were saying about "utter bullshit revisionism"? Slaves being sold in the colonies (by Portuguese, Spanish, British, French and Italian privateers) was already happening before Elizabeth I was crowned. What Elizabeth did (in, IIRC, the 1580s) was to grant the equivalent of trade licences to British companies that became the foundation of the triangular trade.
> 
> Blame Elizabeth, by all means, but don't forget the part the other "Old World" empires played.



It's not about blaming, it's about understanding a common history and the mindsets we've inherited.  It might help to understand the origin of those mindsets that still influence us today.

*The Queen's Slave Trader: John Hawkyns, Elizabeth I, and the Trafficking in Human Souls*

Throughout history, blame for the introduction of slavery in America has been squarely placed upon the slave traders who ravaged African villages, the merchants who auctioned off human lives as if they were cattle, and the slave owners who ruthlessly beat their helpless victims. There is, however, above all these men, another person who has seemingly been able to avoid the blame due her. The origins of slavery -- often described as America's shame -- can actually be traced back to a woman, England's Queen Elizabeth I.

During the 1560s, Elizabeth was encouraging a Renaissance in her kingdom but also knew her country's economy could not finance her dreams for it. On direct orders from Her Majesty, John Hawkyns set sail from England. His destination: West Africa. His mission: to capture human lives.

After landing on the African coast, he used a series of brutal raids, violent beatings, and sheer terror to load his ships. As the first major slave trader, Hawkyns's actions and attitudes toward his cargo set the precedent for those who followed him for the next two hundred years. In *The Queen's Slave Trader*, historian Nick Hazlewood's haunting discoveries take you into the mind-set of the men who made their livelihoods trafficking human souls and at long last reveals the man who began it all -- and the woman behind him.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Queens-Slave-Trader-Trafficking/dp/0060935693


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 2, 2015)

That'd be the triangle then.


----------



## Diana9 (Jan 2, 2015)

Happy New Year everyone!

Be good to each other.

I'm taking this lovely video I found on Urban back with me to the states.

Cheers


----------



## rorymac (Jan 2, 2015)

I like Russell Brand a lot purely as a bloke and I like how he thinks and I especially fucking love his spiritual stuff heh heh. Personally that's mostly all I might wish he would stick to cos all the guys on here who do stuff make some very good points tbf.
I love the way he articulates stuff and it's hard to be critical when in his own head he's actively doing stuff too and for the right reasons by turning out on demos etc etc.
But defo those who say there are huge negatives to it are right as well.
It's kind of hard tbf cos what do you say to a well intentioned guy .. you can only say stuff don't turn up .. don't get involved in individual campaigns or do but go in disguise .. just give em some money .. YOU are a bit of a liability in all honesty.
Well yeah maybe that's it .. that's life on life's terms like everything else .. how it is.

I actually dunno tbh


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 2, 2015)

Diana9 said:


> Have you yourself read this "_ground breaking_" book? If the review you posted is the premise of the book, i.e., "_that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others'" _then it is flat out wrong, as the facts I've already posted show.  Can you refute those facts?
> 
> Instead you spout empty, condescending rhetoric:
> 
> ...



Lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That's certainly my take as well...except I'd probably insert "_has_" for "_may"._



Personally, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he definitively proves otherwise, given that the media will always represent him in the way that serves *them* best.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2015)

Diana9 said:


> It's not about blaming, it's about understanding a common history and the mindsets we've inherited.  It might help to understand the origin of those mindsets that still influence us today.
> 
> *The Queen's Slave Trader: John Hawkyns, Elizabeth I, and the Trafficking in Human Souls*
> 
> ...



Do you understand history and historiography at all? 
So an author writes a book that posits a viewpoint. That doesn't mean that what they've written is an accurate reflection - not because they're dishonest, but because history is broad - it means that it's a perspective. A perspective to be measured against other authors with other perspectives. Only by *not* "picking and choosing" perspectives that favour our own viewpoints are we likely to reach a synthesis of knowledge that *might* broadly reflect what actually happened.
The origins of the taking of slaves (for later sale) from the continent of Africa pre-date Elizabeth I, and the taking of slaves (by agents of European powers) from the West African coast pre-date her father. As I mentioned before, Britain, Spain, Portugal etc were all at it. When Hawkyns raided what's now coastal Ghana, Nigeria etc, there were already Portuguese forts in some places, used for massing slaves for export.


----------



## chilango (Jan 2, 2015)

rorymac said:


> I like Russell Brand a lot purely as a bloke and I like how he thinks and I especially fucking love his spiritual stuff heh heh. Personally that's mostly all I might wish he would stick to cos all the guys on here who do stuff make some very good points tbf.
> I love the way he articulates stuff and it's hard to be critical when in his own head he's actively doing stuff too and for the right reasons by turning out on demos etc etc.
> But defo those who say there are huge negatives to it are right as well.
> It's kind of hard tbf cos what do you say to a well intentioned guy .. you can only say stuff don't turn up .. don't get involved in individual campaigns or do but go in disguise .. just give em some money .. YOU are a bit of a liability in all honesty.
> ...



Thing is if Brand goes beyond "caring" and starts thinking "strategically" about how he can best support stuff it'd help.

But, no different from many non-celebrity activists it's too focused "oh my god I have to do something" rather than a more distanced look at forces involved and how to actually change stuff.

We see it on here regularly enough. Activism as hobby/ego/conscience salve. Sometimes doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff is counter-productive. Sometimes your battle lies away from the obvious one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> That'd be the triangle then.



That was what* initiated* the triangular trade, yes. It didn't build into an established and licenced trade until the 1580s (at least from the perspective of it being more than an occasional money-maker), as I mentioned in my previous post to diana9. What Hawkyns did, with his letters patent from Liz One, was to engage in sanctioned privateering, something that had been going on since at least her dad's time.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 2, 2015)

ibilly99 said:


> and ain't this the trewth...




Fuck sake, not sure which is more annoying, Brand or his centrist "voting's really important, yeah!" opponents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Fuck sake, not sure which is more annoying, Brand or his centrist "voting's really important, yeah!" opponents.



Brand is somewhat more coherent and less dishonest than the "voting is really important" mob. I mean, have they looked at what they're preaching? What benefit beyond exercising our franchise does voting actually bestow on us - I'd contend that it bestows nothing, and that the right to choose every few years which child of privilege will purport to represent us, but will actually follow a neoliberal line regardless, is no benefit at all. So those nice centrist types and their friends in the "vote Labour with no illusions" camp are, to me anyway, part of the problem, not part of any solution.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 3, 2015)

Yeah I'd take brand over Jones, penny, O'Hagan and the rest any day of the week. And isay that as someone who's never liked brand, even before he became an Icke loving darling of the trendy left, in fact ever since he began in his wreckless, dangerous abstinence is the only way drugs treatment crusade.

Definitely more genuine and, surprisingly given that he could probably buy and sell the other three, more in touch with normal people and our lives.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 4, 2015)

Yeah, I'd go along with pretty much every critical point on him that's been written here (I've written a few of them).  The key thing is that it's liberalism dressed as (some kind of) revolution and that it's not all that good having a sleb at the heart of your politics (+ his Ickeistry). Same time I do agree with a few of the points on this page - certainly that he's better than Laurie Penny et al, that he's genuine and that there's nothing inherently wrong with 'generally' good ideas being broadcast on the tellybox.  Suspect he will have brought a few people to radical politics, though whether he does that in a way that keeps them there is a bit less likely.  But yeah, like rorymac  says, it's complicated.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jan 4, 2015)

Democracy Now have just published a transcript of the interview Amy Goodman did with him:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/2/russell_brand_on_revolution_fighting_inequality

Apart from his usual clowning about, he says a number of things which should find an echo in some people here:


> *AMY GOODMAN:* Might you run for mayor of London?
> *RUSSELL BRAND:* I don’t think I would really want to be part of that political system. What I’m interested in is ordinary people being engaged, whether it’s for union activity in their workplaces, new coalitions or people that are taking control of the places that they live, Amy.





> *AMY GOODMAN:* Would you consider running as a member of Parliament? Would you consider running?
> *RUSSELL BRAND:* No, I want to help the ordinary people of America and Britain dismantle their corrupt political structures and replace them with directly responsible, directly democratic organizations. I don’t want to help them lot continue to tyrannize people.
> *AMY GOODMAN:* Do you think you could ever do that within the system, or do you think it’s much more effective to be outside?
> *RUSSELL BRAND:* Well, I would take the advice of people that know a lot more than me—Lawrence Lessig and Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky. Most of those people say that change within the system is prevented, impossible, futile, that we need significant systemic change.


A more balanced attitude to him seems to be emerging, with the main objections now being his celebrity status and his New Age spirituality.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2015)

Maitlis bottled it and failed to tell him to his face what Brand called him...



e2a: just noticed this has already been 'done' over in Labour/Scum thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

Jean-Luc said:


> Democracy Now have just published a transcript of the interview Amy Goodman did with him:
> 
> http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/2/russell_brand_on_revolution_fighting_inequality
> 
> ...


and his fascist mates.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 5, 2015)

The Private Eye diary satire of Brand is pretty good.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2015)

Diana9 said:


> It's not about blaming, it's about understanding a common history and the mindsets we've inherited.  It might help to understand the origin of those mindsets that still influence us today.
> 
> *The Queen's Slave Trader: John Hawkyns, Elizabeth I, and the Trafficking in Human Souls*
> 
> ...


you're not fussed, then, about slavery being e.g. brazil's shame. or saudi arabia's shame. incidentally, i don't think i'd describe as a historian someone who describes himself as a writer and journalist.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 5, 2015)

Pound Shop Ben Elton. That is a horrible insult but not in the way Balls meant it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Pound Shop Ben Elton. That is a horrible insult but not in the way Balls meant it.




indicator of how out of date the cultural references are in those circles really. Elton drank the blairite koool aid long time ago


----------



## Favelado (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> indicator of how out of date the cultural references are in those circles really. Elton drank the blairite koool aid long time ago



When Elton started working with Lloyd Webber I started to have the very slightest suspicion that he may not be very left wing after all.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 5, 2015)

I thought Eddie Izzard was the Blairite cunt's comedian du jour?


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> That'd be the triangle then.



that will be Plymouth.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jan 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> and his fascist mates.


This is typical of the unreasoning and prejudiced criticism that I thought was dying out here. Presumably this is a reference to Laurence Easeman who managed to hoodwick the politically naive Brand for a short while. His views are open to criticism but not for being a fascist or a fascist sympathiser. This is such an outlandish allegation as to be self-defeating. Anyway, what about his anarchist. Green and direct actionist mates?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

Jean-Luc said:


> This is typical of the unreasoning and prejudiced criticism that I thought was dying out here. Presumably this is a reference to Laurence Easeman who managed to hoodwick the politically naive Brand for a short while. His views are open to criticism but not for being a fascist or a fascist sympathiser. This is such an outlandish allegation as to be self-defeating. Anyway, what about his anarchist. Green and direct actionist mates?


for a moment i thought your post satire in the tradition of Spanky Longhorn. then i realised you hate brand more than anyone else here.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 6, 2015)

This is why the left is ineffective.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

Barking_Mad said:


> This is why the left is ineffective.


not sure self-referential posts useful here


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 6, 2015)

Thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

Barking_Mad said:


> Thanks.


always a pleasure


----------



## emanymton (Jan 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I thought Eddie Izzard was the Blairite cunt's comedian du jour?


I thought he was a lib dem?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

emanymton said:


> I thought he was a lib dem?


He's always been vocal active labour.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He's always been vocal active labour.


Yeah your right, don't know what I was thinking.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

emanymton said:


> Yeah your right, don't know what I was thinking.


You were thinking of this horror


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

emanymton said:


> Yeah your right, don't know what I was thinking.


Palace fans don't do LD.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Palace fans don't do LD.


I bet some of them oxbridge comedians who all started supporting palace in the 90s do.

Note: not Roger de Courcey and nookie bear - i know they're solid.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2015)

He has previously described himself as a "radical liberal" so that might have helped confuse the issue.


emanymton said:


> Yeah your right, don't know what I was thinking.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I bet some of them oxbridge comedians who all started supporting palace in the 90s do.
> 
> Note: not Roger de Courcey and nookie bear - i know they're solid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I thought Eddie Izzard was the Blairite cunt's comedian du jour?


yeh. but that 'jour' was quite some time ago.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jan 10, 2015)

Russell has said nothing in his Trews or elsewhere about the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He's probably better off not inflaming the situation, and making himself a target.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 10, 2015)

LOL


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2015)

Cheesypoof said:


> Russell has said nothing in his Trews or elsewhere about the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He's probably better off not inflaming the situation, and making himself a target.


more likely he knows it would get ignored as he's last week's man


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jan 12, 2015)

Cheesypoof said:


> Russell has said nothing in his Trews or elsewhere about the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He's probably better off not inflaming the situation, and making himself a target.


For the record, he has now:

http://www.russellbrand.com/2015/01/paris/


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 12, 2015)

Jean-Luc said:


> For the record, he has now:
> 
> http://www.russellbrand.com/2015/01/paris/


We all need to show some compassiony wassiony


----------



## Dowie (Jan 12, 2015)

well he's now made a youtube video where he seems to just blame western foreign policy:



While it clearly does increase the probability of an attack taking place there was more to this that just western foreign policy, people have faced death threats and been killed long before the war on terror as a result of insults or perceived insults towards the prophet - that ideology, even just the idea that someone deserves to be punished for causing offense (not necessarily an extremist position within Islam even - in fact calls for a change in the law to allow prosecution for insulting the prophet is widely supported amongst British Muslims) ought to be challenged/changed. I'd wager that even if this magazine was based in Switzerland or Ireland they'd have still been facing a real threat for the content they'd published regardless of a neutral foreign policy. There was no US lead war on terror taking place when the Japanese translator of Salmon Rushdie's book was stabbed to death in the early 90s...

For whatever reason Russel just chooses to ignore the influence this ideology had on the attacks too.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 12, 2015)

Dowie said:


> well he's now made a youtube video where he seems to just blame western foreign policy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*
*
what do you mean ?


----------



## Dowie (Jan 12, 2015)

cantsin said:


> what do you mean ?



I mean he has chosen not to mention it


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 14, 2015)

what a bunch of total fuckbuckles
http://rt.com/uk/222195-edl-attack-brand-book/
burn the evil book things!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2015)

malatesta32 said:


> what a bunch of total fuckbuckles
> http://rt.com/uk/222195-edl-attack-brand-book/
> burn the evil book things!



Did they chant "I am Charlie"?


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 14, 2015)

more like 'j'taime charlie (and stella).


----------



## Chick Webb (Jan 14, 2015)

Dowie said:


> I'd wager that even if this magazine was based in Switzerland or Ireland they'd have still been facing a real threat for the content they'd published regardless of a neutral foreign policy. There was no US lead war on terror taking place when the Japanese translator of Salmon Rushdie's book was stabbed to death in the early 90s...
> 
> For whatever reason Russel just chooses to ignore the influence this ideology had on the attacks too.


Ireland isn't neutral in the "war on terror".  Any time I've been in Shannon Airport over the last few years I've seen American soldiers and aircraft.  It's well known they pass through there on their rendition flights.

I don't know if Switzerland have been up to owt.

ETA: I think blasphemy may still be illegal in Ireland in any case!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2015)

Chick Webb said:


> Ireland isn't neutral in the "war on terror".  Any time I've been in Shannon Airport over the last few years I've seen American soldiers and aircraft.  It's well known they pass through there on their rendition flights.
> 
> I don't know if Switzerland have been up to owt.


and if isis wanted to pass through the 26 cos i am sure the dublin govt would afford them the same courtesies they do the americans.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 14, 2015)

Russell Brand's doing quite a good program about drugs on BBC3 at the moment.  Although his position is obviously pro abstinence, he's being pretty balanced and researching and presenting the program well.


----------



## gosub (Jan 14, 2015)

Chick Webb said:


> Ireland isn't neutral in the "war on terror".  Any time I've been in Shannon Airport over the last few years I've seen American soldiers and aircraft.  It's well known they pass through there on their rendition flights.
> 
> I don't know if Switzerland have been up to owt.
> 
> ETA: I think blasphemy may still be illegal in Ireland in any case!



Both Switzerland and Ireland had troops seconded to NATO (of which neither is a member) in Afganistan


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2015)

8115 said:


> Russell Brand's doing quite a good program about drugs on BBC3 at the moment.  Although his position is obviously pro abstinence, he's being pretty balanced and researching and presenting the program well.



I only caught the last half hour but thought it was really well done. His compassion with the two women drug addicts was touching.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2015)

This (almost) makes me feel like apologising to Russell....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2015)

but it's the bomb that will keep us together


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> but it's the bomb that will keep us together


yeh in the same way that love will tear us apart


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2015)

The People's Bomb.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 28, 2015)

Amazon review of Russel's wooky-booky by Robert David Steele - an odd goat-starer type who used to be in the "company" - ( taps side of nose )

20 of 26 people found the following review helpful





 Brilliant, Intricate, Non-Violent, and Optimistic, November 4, 2014

This review is from: Revolution (Hardcover)

In relation to the 2,000 plus non-fiction books I have reviewed here at Amazon, this book is brilliant. Normally I would consider giving it four stars for lacking an index and endnotes, obviously needed for the poorly educated morons that cannot grasp the many (many) direct references to top authors and thinkers. For crying out loud, Thomas Piketty, author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is received by the author in his home and cited in this book, as are so many others. So a solid five stars for impact and self-made erudition.

Let me state very clearly that the publisher has sodomized this author by not including an index, a bibliography, or endnotes. As the top Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, reviewing books across 98 distinct non-fiction categories, I am blown away by the clever, poetic, and pointed manner in which the author has integrated a vast (vast) range of reading and personal conversations into this book.

Here are a few meta-observations, followed by some detailed notes. I found this book absorbing and moving. Those that say the author does not offer specific solutions are clearly illiterates who have not actually read the book.

01 Poetry and philosophy. Will Durant's 1916 thesis, now available as Philosophy and the Social Problem: The Annotated Edition, fits easily with this author's panoramic book of both the problems and the possibilities.

02 If Russell Brand can be clean for 11 years, We the People can overturn our blind addictions to toxic corporations and absentee corrupt governments. There is a marvelous personal story woven throughout this book, the bottom line being that the author has chosen to be clean and deal with reality, something 80% of the public will not do -- their drugs of choice being slave wages, alcohol, gambling, and pornography.

03 We ALL want to be delivered from evil, including the 1%. I am charmed by a brief report from the author of his encounter with Lady Lynn Rothschild (who is originally from New Jersey) -- not mentioned in the book is the fact that she sponsored a May conference on Inclusive Capitalism, and together with the Mars Family (Mutuality Economics) and the "black sheep billionaires" (Redemptive Capitalism), represents the fraction of the 1% that "gets it" -- restore public agency or get a pitchfork up your ass.

04 Citing Fawzi Ibrahim, we have a choice: capitalism or the planet. Restoring community is how we cope. I am reminded of two books in particular, Lionel Tiger's The Manufacture of Evil: Ethics, Evolution and the Industrial System and Human scale.

05 Overall the author comes across as a loving conscious spirit who means no ill to the 1% but is sharply focused on achieving dignity and fairness for the 99%. He has completed his own Hero's Journey, has climbed out of the abyss, and is now a voice for public healing.

SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS

01 Control and hold accountable all corporations, scrapping the World Trade Organization (WTO) and creating the World Environmental Organization (WEO).

02 Re-localize food and farming (the UN just announced that this is the only sustainable agricultural solution)

03 Prioritize life over profit by rejecting Gross National Product (GNP) in favor of more community and life-affirming measures.

04 Individual debt jubilee.

05 Route around governments with autonomous community-based organizations

06 Get the money out of politics, participate instead of voting, move toward Liquid Democracy

07 Shift the energy paradigm to include shutting down all nuclear.

08 Make society, not economics, central to how we organize.

09 Open information, open eyes, open mind -- restore public power with transparency.

10 Demand 70% affordable housing from any development.

11 Direct most government funding to social enterprises.

12 Free Wi-Fi everywhere

MINOR NOTES

01 This book is hilarious.

02 Among key intellectual influences worth noting are Joseph Campbell and Sir James Goldsmith. I would add two recommended books, Peter Linebaugh's Stop, Thief!: The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance (Spectre) and Matt Taibbi's Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History.

03 What US Government paid in bank bail-outs would have provided $50,000 a year to each homeless person in the USA.

04 60,000 of the homeless in the USA are veterans (independent fact check shows no fewer than 50,000).

05 Our attitude toward homelessness (obliviousness) is symptomatic of our attitude toward genocide, war, and general political and economic corruption.

06 Pedophilia is politics and politics is pedophilia. This is a nuclear grenade. Buy the book. I will certify that it applies in the USA as much as it may apply in the UK and across Europe.

07 Among the many corporations that should be killed (put out of existence) are Apple, Boots, Coca Cola, Disney, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, General Motors, Monsanto, Pfizer, and Time Warner.

08 The author lionizes Daniel Pinchbeck, whom I also worship, he was the publisher of my book in the signature line, and is a cultural and spiritual guru of the first order.

09 Among the most interesting elements of the book for me were sections deconstructing the Lord's Prayer, dismantling "Manifest Destiny," and sections throughout the book on the intersection between science, religion, and consciousness. There are so many books I would like to recommend, here I must limit myself to two: Quantum Jumps: An Extraordinary Science of Happiness and Prosperity and Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution.

10 I have MANY books annotated in the margins of this book, I mention this to make the point that anyone who demeans this author's erudite and poetic essay -- never mind the crap publisher screwing over the details -- is simply not well-read. With my two remaining links I offer Theresa Amato's Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny and the UK's only utterly genius Philip Allot of Cambridge, The Health of Nations: Society and Law beyond the State.

The author concludes with a strong statement, very detailed, on the need to migrate toward community-based social enterprises and self-governance -- a Nobel Prize was awarded to Elino Ostrom for her book on Governing the Commons that made many of these points.

I am very happy to stand with the author on the substance of this book. It serves us all.

Robert David STEELE Vivas
THE OPEN SOURCE EVERYTHING MANIFESTO: Transparency, Truth, & Trust


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2015)

I imagine Peter Linebaugh is overjoyed at being used by this pompous  _jews did 911_ huckster (who you can hire to speak at events).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2015)

hot air baboon said:


> Amazon review of Russel's wooky-booky by Robert David Steele - an odd goat-starer type who used to be in the "company" - ( taps side of nose )
> 
> 20 of 26 people found the following review helpful
> 
> ...


he was better when he was in marine corps intelligence.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> ...marine corps intelligence....



that's one_* hell*_ of an oxymoron your toting there pardner...



butchersapron said:


> ....pompous  jews did 911 huckster.....



...mmmm...managed to miss that although I've seen alot of his stuff on Amazon....its difficult to avoid it....I do worry about the quality : quantity trade off of his output...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2015)

hot air baboon said:


> that's one_* hell*_ of an oxymoron your toting there pardner.......I do worry about the quality : quantity trade off of his output...


the nato open source trilogy readily available online is interesting and useful, if a bit dated (it was written about 15 years ago and the internet's moved on somewhat since then). what he's written about revolution is simply bollocks. although i suppose brand's supporters like it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 29, 2015)

8115 said:


> Russell Brand's doing quite a good program about drugs on BBC3 at the moment.  Although his position is obviously pro abstinence, he's being pretty balanced and researching and presenting the program well.



An excellent program, yes.  Everything he does is brilliant, except comedy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 2, 2015)

Predictably, Daniel 'Anglosphere' Hannan penned a piece on Brand, in which he describes him as "anti-democratic".



> Think about that for a moment. Russell Brand’s quarrel isn’t with the people who have more courage than him; it’s with parliamentary democracy itself. A chap might be making an honest living as, say, a “comedian and campaigner”; but the very fact of bothering to ask his countrymen for their votes would turn him into a shyster.
> 
> OK, Russell, so if you don’t like representative democracy, what’s your alternative? Anarchy? Fascism? Monarchical absolutism? An Islamic Caliphate? Because you can’t have a functioning democracy without politicians; and politicians, in every parliament, tend to group themselves officially or unofficially into parties.
> http://www.capx.co/every-dictator-has-made-the-same-anti-democracy-arguments-as-russell-brand/



Brand as a dictator? I can't see it. Hannan, like his chums, are scared of anything that contradicts their cosy view of untrammelled laissez-faire and its social consequences (which are ignored by Hannan et al). The article is hilarious. Hannan can't resist summoning up the ghosts of history's dictators in his conclusion.



> Let me put the question again: what is the alternative? Dislike of party politics has been the justification for every autocrat in history: Cromwell, Bonaparte, Lenin, Mussolini, Franco. And it always starts in the same way, with the arguments now being put forward by Russell Brand.



What? No Pinochet? I wonder why?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 8, 2015)

I like Russell Brand a good deal more than many of the commenters on this thread, but I have to admit this is a hilarious impression (at 00:34):


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2015)

Morgana Robinson is awesome there


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 8, 2015)

Morgana Robinson is a truly masterful impressionist.

If you've never seen Chris Moyles not notice he's handing over to her (for a bit at least) and not Fearne Cotton on Radio 1 then you should watch this.


----------



## treelover (Feb 8, 2015)

> Robinson was born in Australia but brought up in Britain.[4] She attended the exclusive Benenden Boarding School.[4]



Yes, she is great, but yet another one..



> When she was 12 years old, her life changed dramatically when her adopted father discovered his biological, and very wealthy, family. Aunt Jilly insisted that Morgana be sent to Benenden School. “



ah, bit more complicated


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> Yes, she is great, but yet another one..
> 
> 
> 
> ah, bit more complicated



You know what - If someone's been to a nobby private school I usually mentally reduce the extent to which I'm impressed by their achievements by about 50%. But, given I don't reckon that MR's school was a hotbed of impressionism, and it isn't widely known for it's extra-curricular impressionism facilities, and doesn't employ Phil Cool as a visiting professor - I"m going to let this one go.

Cumberbatch and Damian Lewis on the other hand, can fuck right off.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> Yes, she is great, but yet another one..
> 
> 
> 
> ah, bit more complicated



yes completely stops her from being funny...


----------



## emanymton (Mar 26, 2015)

I'll just leave this here

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...-voted-worlds-fourth-most-influential-thinker


----------



## Ld222 (Mar 26, 2015)

Que meltdown

"Speaking about the results, Prospect’s editor, Bronwen Maddox, said: “This was voted for entirely by readers and does not represent Prospect’s views. Russell Brand has made an important contribution to conversation and ideas over the past year. We have an initial list of 50 people for readers to vote from and, given the platform Brand has been given on the BBC and the Guardian, we felt he should be included. It is a list that is very dependent on events over the past year, so it is not surprising, with the recent release of Revolution and all the conversation around it, that Brand appears on this list. But this was very much Thomas Piketty’s race – he was well beyond all the others in terms of votes.”

In the past, the magazine itself has not been altogether in favour of Brand’s personal revolution. In one review titled No, Russell Brand, You’re No Noam Chomsky, Brand is criticised for his “constant changes of tone from whimsical memoir to sombre pseudo-philosophic discourse”, with the book described as “unpleasantly jarring” and “gratingly predictable”.

Some of the profits from Brand’s book are now going to be funnelled into a cafe on the New Era estate in Hackney, where the activist successfully helped fight the planned eviction of the residents. Rather than a profit-making enterprise, the cafe – named the Trew Era Cafe – will go towards funding local community projects."

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...-voted-worlds-fourth-most-influential-thinker


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 26, 2015)

Ld222 said:


> Que meltdown


----------



## smokedout (Mar 27, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/mar/26/russell-brand-donates-profits-book-hackney-cafe



> this cafe is going to be run by people in abstinence-based recovery. It’s a model which is not for profit, a fully self-supporting new economic enterprise.
> 
> 
> “We’ll start more and more of these social enterprises. Eventually, we will trade with one another in our own currency. We are going to create our own systems, our own federations, our own currencies, our own authorities ... Politics is dead, this is the end of politics. What we are discussing now is what comes after. We have an opportunity to create something better and it will start with small enterprises such as this.”



hipster cult


----------



## smokedout (Mar 27, 2015)

I so hope we catch him using workfare


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2015)

Endorsing the Greens...how revolutionary.


----------



## BigTom (May 2, 2015)

I was shocked to hear the news, it was like OMG, there is someone worth voting for in the system after all, Brand is against the system so I can trust him to tell me the system is alright, just as long as I vote Green.


----------



## CNT36 (May 2, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Predictably, Daniel 'Anglosphere' Hannan penned a piece on Brand, in which he describes him as "anti-democratic".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There was half hour election twatfest following Newsnight last night. It was basically that post. You were played by Billy Bragg. There was also a senile Tory on actually called Lady Trumpington.


----------



## Coolfonz (May 4, 2015)

Russell Millibrand


----------



## Buckaroo (May 4, 2015)

He's a cunt, he's voting, he's voting labour!



eta Twat


----------



## crossthebreeze (May 4, 2015)

what a revolutionary ffs


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 4, 2015)

I read about Brand's "conversion" yesterday. I wonder whether it will bring Brand's followers over to the Labour camp or perhaps they are dyed in the wool anarchists who are not even registered. Miliband pulled a flanker there if he can achieve that.


----------



## treelover (May 4, 2015)

only if they are registered to vote,

btw, this is now national news...


----------



## bemused (May 4, 2015)

Vote Labour for a revolution - best joke Russ has ever written.


----------



## OneStrike (May 4, 2015)

It's hard for me to get inside Brands mind-set but with Cameron calling him a joke, Brand, the self confessed self-centered bloke he is might have just thought feck it, i'll endorse a whole load of votes to his rival, just because I can.  Not that I really give a rat's arse tbh.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 4, 2015)

OneStrike said:


> It's hard for me to get inside Brands mind-set but with Cameron calling him a joke, Brand, the self confessed self-centered bloke he is might have just thought feck it, i'll endorse a whole load of votes to his rival, just because I can.  Not that I really give a rat's arse tbh.


it's typical of the posturing dilettante. But seeing as Ihave only one dog in this race, hgere's hoping he gets a few freaks out for labour. Then I can watch PMQ's again which I have been unable to do the full distance of for five years


----------



## dishevelled (May 4, 2015)

I'd like to stick Brand and Clarkson in a rocket... and just launch it somewhere in the general direction of Uranus... with no telecommunications.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 4, 2015)

bemused said:


> Vote Labour for a revolution - best joke Russ has ever written.


sure it was written for him


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2015)

There'll be some suggestible Brand fans out there now who, (for whatever reasons) want to follow what Brand says, finding themselves unable to do so as voter registration has now closed. All well thought through...obviously.


----------



## Coolfonz (May 4, 2015)

What a fucking nobjockey. Power is _so_ alluring. One visit from a real politician in his kitchen and he's rolled over.
Mind you, lucky he didn't have Nick Griffin over for a cook-in.


----------



## smokedout (May 5, 2015)

someone needs to get that cunt back on the smack


----------



## smokedout (May 5, 2015)

joke obvs sorry


----------



## DotCommunist (May 5, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> What a fucking nobjockey. Power is _so_ alluring. One visit from a real politician in his kitchen and he's rolled over.
> Mind you, lucky he didn't have Nick Griffin over for a cook-in.


well thats it isn't it?@ Ive met a number of labour pols over the years, and their minions. All secret reds just waiting for power and then they will enact the transistional program. Just fuck off you lying bastards


----------



## Casually Red (May 5, 2015)

What a twat .

Katy perrys well shot of the chlamydia riven attention seeker . A man with no character or class whatsoever . The only good thing is he's exposed his twat followers and fans as twats . Who'll be moping about with their mouths open all confused now .


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 5, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> What a fucking nobjockey. Power is _so_ alluring. One visit from a real politician in his kitchen and he's rolled over.
> Mind you, lucky he didn't have Nick Griffin over for a cook-in.


given the way he annihilated Mark Collett a good few years ago (videos on youtube) it's unlikely. 

Why are people surprised or upset by this btw? Did you think Brand was a committed socialist revolutionary or summat? He's nothing if not eclectic.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> There'll be some suggestible Brand fans out there now who, (for whatever reasons) want to follow what Brand says, finding themselves unable to do so as voter registration has now closed. All well thought through...obviously.



It's OK, their mums filled in the card for them.


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Did you think Brand was a committed socialist revolutionary or summat? He's nothing if not eclectic.



If 'eclectic' means prepared to say anything to sell a book/product, then yes.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 5, 2015)

Fair play to Russell. He's obviously not as daft as he looks then?


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> Fair play to Russell. He's obviously not as daft as he looks then?


How so? What's he done?


----------



## Rob Ray (May 5, 2015)

Brand always said he'd vote for someone if he thought they would actually change things, and always had the "politicians are all aliens" view in the backdrop of his public pronouncements. So it's not exactly surprising that he'd be amenable when someone like Miliband - who for all his TV awkwardness, is a professional persuader and very personable - comes in and shows he's human.

The thing which is amusing me is the volte-face from all those Labour ballot-botherers who spent months slagging Brand off as a politically illiterate moron but have suddenly decided he's pretty sharp, actually. A good guy really. A clever Tory would have a field day with the last six months of Guardian columns. As a non-voter, I'm just glad I no longer have to explain "no not like Russell Brand."


----------



## bemused (May 5, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Brand always said he'd vote for someone if he thought they would actually change things[..]



He also said Ed didn't have the tools for the job. He's a lefty version of Alex Jones really, he's found an audience he can milk for some cash and he's going for it.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> How so? What's he done?



For realising that if we're going to have a revolution we might be able to get rid of Tory government along the way...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 5, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> given the way he annihilated Mark Collett a good few years ago (videos on youtube) it's unlikely.
> 
> *Why are people surprised or upset by this btw*? Did you think Brand was a committed socialist revolutionary or summat? He's nothing if not eclectic.



is anyone? all I see is people saying 'yup, knew it' or 'twat' which you can say about brand any day of the year


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Excellent response from Johnny.



> It’s hardly surprising that Eddie Izzard, Alan Partridge and now even Russell Brand all want us to vote Labour.  They are the people the modern Labour Party represents after all.  Millionaires who feel a bit guilty about poverty and stuff but don’t want to change things too much.  At least not so much that it might make an impact on their own cosseted lives.





> For Russell Brand – who called himself a revolutionary five minutes ago – to endorse this is both treason and boringly predicatble.  It is astonishing and even quite funny that as soon as a rich person publicly denounces capitalism then the leader of a main political party dashes round their house and steers them gently back onto the path of neo-liberalism.  But it is a tragedy as well, at least for those who may have felt inspired by Brand’s crude radicalism.  His message, before Ed’s intervention, was essentially along the right lines.  They are all fucking wankers and only in it for themselves.  That includes Russell Brand as well it turns out.  Never trust a hippy, especially a rich one.


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> For realising that if we're going to have a revolution we might be able to get rid of Tory government along the way...


----------



## Liveist (May 5, 2015)

smokedout said:


> someone needs to get that cunt back on the smack



He's too much of a weak-minded pussy to even stick with that.


----------



## poului (May 5, 2015)

Be fair, the fallout from this amongst his fans is pretty funny to watch.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 5, 2015)

> It’s hardly surprising that Eddie Izzard, Alan Partridge and now even Russell Brand all want us to vote Labour. They are the people the modern Labour Party represents after all. Millionaires who feel a bit guilty about poverty and stuff but don’t want to change things too much. At least not so much that it might make an impact on their own cosseted lives



Yeah but they've got some choices, have they not? They could just spend their millions and not really give a toss about what is going on around them. They could actively support a few crumbs being thrown from the table, as the Labour luvvies do. Or they could be like Sol Campbell and oppose the possibility of even the slightest crumb leaving that top table. He's got those crumbs in a death grip! "I've worked hard for that... how dare you punish my success". I mean, it was like spidey senses with that cunt. Not a word from him publicly about politics in his life then all of a sudden Labour mention the Mansion Tax and the next thing he might be Tory candidate for Mayor of London!


----------



## emanymton (May 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Never trust a hippy, especially a rich one.


Words to live by.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 5, 2015)

Russellllll!! Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Polite, but correct.


----------



## rekil (May 5, 2015)

Buckaroo said:


> Russellllll!! Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!



He and his nuttermobile can fuck off tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Polite, but correct.



Touch of the old holger meins (WARNING - not a nice pic) there.


----------



## treelover (May 5, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Touch of the old holger meins (WARNING - not a nice pic) there.



Oh my goodness, wish I hadn't looked at that, and I don't see the connection with brand


----------



## rorymac (May 5, 2015)

It's a strange un tbf


----------



## maomao (May 5, 2015)

treelover said:


> Oh my goodness, wish I hadn't looked at that, and I don't see the connection with brand


Physical resemblance. Don't think Brand is quite that skinny though.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2015)

treelover said:


> Oh my goodness, wish I hadn't looked at that, and I don't see the connection with brand


I doubt you even looked at the pic of brand before posting that but never mind:


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> What a fucking nobjockey. Power is _so_ alluring. One visit from a real politician in his kitchen and he's rolled over.


Changed your mind too eh?


----------



## xenon (May 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> If 'eclectic' means prepared to say anything to sell a book/product, then yes.



I don't think it's even that. He's just a wobbler, lacks interlectual rigor and not as smart as he thinks he is. Nothing unusual there but tad embarrassing to be so easily persuaded back to mainstream politics after giving it all the revolution stuff.


----------



## Coolfonz (May 5, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Changed your mind too eh?


Looks that way. I thought he might have something about him. He did knock about at Maydays and the like beforehand. And it's pretty tedious seeing leftys slagging leftys. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt (I also don't get the big fuss, only ever saw him on TV on Big Brother, but still...) 

But your unstintingly fine judgment and others on this thread, his poor choice of friends, his use of the plagiarist to work on his book (this is the worst thing for me personally), coupled with this daftness makes me think he's been pretty silly. 

From what I also read today he has now endorsed the Greens. From no voting to voting for everyone.

Maybe you should become his Peter Mandelson? Keep him on the straight and narrow.


----------



## CNT36 (May 7, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> Looks that way. I thought he might have something about him. He did knock about at Maydays and the like beforehand. And it's pretty tedious seeing leftys slagging leftys. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt (I also don't get the big fuss, only ever saw him on TV on Big Brother, but still...)
> 
> But your unstintingly fine judgment and others on this thread, his poor choice of friends, his use of the plagiarist to work on his book (this is the worst thing for me personally), coupled with this daftness makes me think he's been pretty silly.
> 
> ...


He's a political genius. He can't get people to stop voting so he'll trick hem into spoil their ballots by voting for two candidates. I take it all back.


----------



## elbows (May 8, 2015)

The chump reflects on the election and getting swept up in all that party shit.


----------



## rekil (May 8, 2015)

The dead hand of Johann Hari put him up to it.


----------



## cesare (May 8, 2015)




----------



## Buckaroo (May 8, 2015)

They told him he could make a difference...and he believed them!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2015)

does he get to keep Milibands stone tablet?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2015)

could eat your dinner off of it


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 8, 2015)

I think we can all move along now. 

There is absolutely nothing to see here


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2015)

Worth it just for 1.05 to 1.10. 

"*Who cares, who cares?*"


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 1, 2015)

Went in the local bookshop earlier. Still seems to be the same single copy on the shelf. The latest Chomsky has four copies and the latest Klein four as well but that is the second probably third lot of four by my reckoning. Something comforting about that.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 22, 2015)

wow, anyone who shouts that millionaires (or Russell Brand) shouldn't be on the platform at a demo has a mental health problem, the london riots were bad and he wants us to love the police:


----------



## Belushi (Jun 22, 2015)

Hmmm, is he really approving of that Westmonster Banksters Sponsored by Rothschild 'artwork'?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2015)

smokedout said:


> wow, anyone who shouts that millionaires (or Russell Brand) shouldn't be on the platform at a demo has a mental health problem, the london riots were bad and he wants us to love the police:



Well he's Labour now, Isn't he?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2015)

Johnny 's nailed him.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jun 22, 2015)

He's in the house of mirrors, turning on a sixpence, a mixed bag, lots of the clichès.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> He's in the house of mirrors, turning on a sixpence, a mixed bag, lots of the clichès.


dancing on a pinhead


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jun 22, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> dancing on a pinhead


I'm not going there, ermm


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I'm not going there, ermm


i think you'd find it difficult to go there, brand's already there and there's no room for anyone else.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 7, 2015)

Those massacres and those tragedies...don't sell weapons to those countries...I believe in god right and I pray everyday right...you're a villa fan, I'm west ham, claret and blue..


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

As night follows day...
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/russell-brand-endorses-jeremy-corbyn-lead-labour


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2018)

J Ed said:


> Tariq Ramadan is also no stranger to nasty reactionary politics


he's been taken into custody on rape allegations Oxford professor Tariq Ramadan taken into custody by French police


----------

