# Paxo v Brand starts in 5 minutes



## lt35 (Oct 23, 2013)

10:30 pm on BBC2.  Could be interesting? (or possibly as pointless as Dizzee's "opinions" on Newsnight )


----------



## classicdish (Oct 23, 2013)

"There is totally going to be a revolution!" (or something)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_two_england/watchlive


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2013)

Alec Salmond?


----------



## lt35 (Oct 23, 2013)

Erm yes, probably be the the last piece soz


----------



## classicdish (Oct 23, 2013)

I'll make another post when he comes on.


----------



## lt35 (Oct 23, 2013)

At least it seems we won't be losing _another _refinery


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2013)

Fucking finally.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 23, 2013)

He's on


----------



## lt35 (Oct 23, 2013)

wtf? doesn't vote?


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 23, 2013)

is that Russel brand or the guy from shameless?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2013)

Paxman leans forward and repeatedly thrusts his finger in Brand's face...love it.


----------



## lt35 (Oct 23, 2013)

makes good point about serving needs of corporations tbf


----------



## Supine (Oct 23, 2013)

Wonderful performance


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2013)

Fuckin hell he's good.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 23, 2013)

Tha was rather good. Brand beat paxo


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2013)

/stands and applauds


----------



## classicdish (Oct 23, 2013)

Wow!

We need that on YouTube asap


----------



## lt35 (Oct 23, 2013)

good shit , have a thing about tax havens and non-doms


----------



## classicdish (Oct 23, 2013)

I wish I could have summarised but he spoke so quick / said so much that it was impossible to type anything


----------



## peterkro (Oct 23, 2013)

Paxo just said "the more time you spend indoors the less cases of rickets for instance" the stupid fucker,how wrong can you be?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2013)

It was excellent.  Brand, in the middle of his (cough) rant, looked around at the other, off-camera, people in the room.   He was talking utter sense.

I'll be honest...I used to think he was a celeb twat...then when he stopped taking drugs I thought he was an up-his-own-arse twat.   I've liked quite a bit of stuff in the papers lately though.

That was quite stirring.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 23, 2013)




----------



## classicdish (Oct 23, 2013)

So this is linked to tomorrow's issue of The New Statesman which Brand is guest editing:

*



			"Comedian RUSSELL BRAND has landed a new role as the guest editor of politics and culture magazine the New Statesman.
		
Click to expand...

*


> _
> The Forgetting Sarah Marshall star's upcoming issue will explore the theme of revolution through articles on climate change, gay rights, transcendental meditation and drug addiction.
> 
> In a statement, the reformed wildman jokes, "I am honoured to be editing an issue of the New Statesman. My first act is to edit the name of the magazine to the Nude Statesman, which will allay fears that this populist move will descend into puerility.
> ...




http://www.new-magazine.co.uk/latestnews/view/55668/Russell-Brand-guest-editing-New-Statesman/


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2013)




----------



## classicdish (Oct 23, 2013)

Actually here is a better link: http://www.newstatesman.com/Russell Brand


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 23, 2013)

Self serving bullshit artist.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 23, 2013)

he might just have a future in politics


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 23, 2013)

Sweet FA said:


> Self serving bullshit artist.


and Brand isn't so much better


----------



## Hollis (Oct 23, 2013)

Good news about coffee.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 23, 2013)

For a moment I thought that this was a programme where Paxman confronted his own brand. But tragically not so.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 23, 2013)

Is he still mates with David Icke?


----------



## youngian (Oct 23, 2013)

That was politics from the heart not the head, just passion rather than intellect. And good for him, we could do with a bit more of it and sort out the details later.



Sweet FA said:


> Self serving bullshit artist.


Not a very good one for someone who gets jobs in Hollywood and US networks. Far better for a self serving opportunist in that position to keep thier mouth shut


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Is he still mates with David Icke?


Paxman?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 24, 2013)

youngian said:


> That was politics from the heart not the head, just passion rather than intellect. And good for him, we could do with a bit more of it and sort out the details later.


I think he could easily have talked about 'the working class', anarchism, capitalism etc if he wanted to but deliberately uses everyday language that won't alienate an average member of the public or fall back into over-used cliches. In this sense I think he is an excellent communicator very aware of how things will sound to a audience - the 'intellect' part is there if you read between the lines.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 24, 2013)

He's quite good when there are no women in the room for him to be creepy about


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 24, 2013)

Paxman keeps saying arse! On the BBC!

Fuck's sake


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Is he still mates with David Icke?


he did keep on saying stuff about it being time to 'wake up'.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 24, 2013)

classicdish said:


> I think he could easily have talked about 'the working class', anarchism, capitalism etc if he wanted to but deliberately uses everyday language that won't alienate an average member of the public or fall back into over-used cliches. In this sense I think he is an excellent communicator very aware of how things will sound to a audience - the 'intellect' part is there if you read between the lines.



The word 'paradigm's every day language? I enjoyed the interview but he uses as much jargon as the next politico on the Urban 75 boards.


----------



## albionism (Oct 24, 2013)

youngian said:


> That was politics from the heart not the head, just passion rather than intellect. And good for him, we could do with a bit more of it and sort out the details later.
> 
> 
> Not a very good one for someone who gets jobs in Hollywood and US networks. Far better for a self serving opportunist in that position to keep thier mouth shut


Aye, most people in his position are saying fuck all about fuck all, he's out there stirring shit up
and i applaud him for it. He may be a prat but he in an endearing prat and the more i see of
him the more i am warming to him.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2013)

really incredible sharp and speedy thinking - he's a got a manic brain, and its great he's putting it to good use. it was a barnstormer of a performance. and it came across as truly earnest.

The conspiracy-theory thing is there a bit under the surface though - although 'paradigm' is as valid word it is one conspiracy people use a lot. i wonder how much interaction he has with lefty types? I doubt he's got a very fixed idea about how to go about creating social change, and is happy to defer to others on that. I guess just playing with mainstream media is his skill and thats probably good enough for him.
a gay friend of mine approvingly posted this last week - looks like he's got his own talk show out in the states
interviewing "fag hating" westboro baptists




Stigmata said:


> He's quite good when there are no women in the room for him to be creepy about


In this he still managed to hit on the New Statesman editor from a distance. I wonder what the intersectionists make of it!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

> Q. Dear Jeremy
> When you interview a Tory MP you interrogate them, but when you interview a Labour MP you spoon feed them answers. Do you vote Labour?
> Yours sincerely
> Omar Malik
> ...


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2013)

This is Russell's 'manifesto' in the NEw Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution
not had a chance to read it yet


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2013)

Have I seen a different clip to everyone else? People are talking as if some great new political thought outclassed Paxman. All I saw was a millionaire actor spouting some wishy washy new age bollocks with a large smattering of terms straight from Icke. Paxman just looked and sounded bemused.

"Things are shit and need to change". Well, yeah, thanks for that Russell. Now what?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2013)

ah, but he said it with passion, anger and eloquence - thats the power of a good orator


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Have I seen a different clip to everyone else? People are talking as if some great new political thought outclassed Paxman. All I saw was a millionaire actor spouting some wishy washy new age bollocks with a large smattering of terms straight from Icke. Paxman just looked and sounded bemused.
> 
> "Things are shit and need to change". Well, yeah, thanks for that Russell. Now what?


 I want someone to post a good Tankie-style takedown of brand's snivelling pseudo-revolutionary reformism (more taxation!) here as I'm not clever enough but could look that way c&p-ing it on other forums this is getting talked about.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 24, 2013)

Sound & fury.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 24, 2013)

Some Twitterers are calling for his head! He didn't actually say he was a revolutionary leader, but anyway;

http://anarchamoose.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/glorification-of-celebrity-dicks-stop-it/


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://anarchamoose.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/glorification-of-celebrity-dicks-stop-it/


"irritating posh cunt"

posh????


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> "irritating posh cunt"
> 
> posh????



Hardly posh: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631811/Family-Detective-Russell-Brand.html

I agree with their "irritating cunt, misogynist, creep and all round un-funny dickhead" though.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2013)

ska invita said:


> . I wonder what the intersectionists make of it!


 
as expected!


Mr.Bishie said:


> calling for his head!
> 
> http://anarchamoose.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/glorification-of-celebrity-dicks-stop-it/


----------



## lt35 (Oct 24, 2013)

Anyone managed to buy a printed copy of Brand's NS yet?  Went down to Smiths earlier and they weren't in yet


----------



## lt35 (Oct 24, 2013)

ska invita said:


> This is Russell's 'manifesto' in the NEw Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution
> not had a chance to read it yet


I thought it was inspiring, but I think its already happening.  It's just some reporters and the politicians haven't caught up yet


----------



## D'wards (Oct 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> "irritating posh cunt"
> 
> posh????


 Furthermore the story about Brand refusing to work with the actress until she showed him her tits was pure fabrication - Billy Connolly was one of the players who was quoted as being disgusted, came out and said nothing happened at all.


----------



## Geri (Oct 24, 2013)

No mention of the $2.2 million house he's just bought in the Hollywood hills in that article, I notice. 

Absolute fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 24, 2013)

lt35 said:


> Anyone managed to buy a printed copy of Brand's NS yet?  Went down to Smiths earlier and they weren't in yet



Here it is! I suggested before that if stops messing about, Russell Brand should lead the revolution. Looks like he wants to

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)




----------



## RedDragon (Oct 24, 2013)

A licensed to revolt national treasure caught in the cul-de-sac of sixth form politics, buys into the LA scene whilst screeching it's all unfair.


----------



## lt35 (Oct 24, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> Here it is! I suggested before that if stops messing about, Russell Brand should lead the revolution. Looks like he wants to
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution



Yeah, saw that. Just wanted a hard copy as a keeper. Thanks anyway.  Will order one online - just wanted to be one of the first revolutionaries!


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 24, 2013)

> After visiting the slums of Kibera, where a city built from mud and run on fear festers on the suburbs of Nairobi, I was sufficiently schooled by Live Aid and Michael Buerk to maintain an emotional distance. It was only when our crew visited a nearby rubbish dump that the comforting buoyancy of visual clichés rinsed away by the deluge of a previously inconceivable reality





> A few weeks later I was in Paris at a Givenchy fashion show where the most exquisite garments cantered by on underfed, well-bred clothes horses. The spectacle was immaculate, smoke-filled bubbles burst on to the runway. To be here in this gleaming sophistication was heaven. Here starvation is a tool to achieve the perfect perpendicular pelvis.





> The model of pre-Christian man has fulfilled its simian objectives. We have survived, we have created agriculture and cities. Now this version of man must be sacrificed that we can evolve beyond the reaches of the ape. These stories contain great clues to our survival when we release ourselves from literalism and superstition. What are ideologies other than a guide for life? Throughout paganism one finds stories that integrate our species with our environment to the benefit of both.



and so on and so forth


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 24, 2013)

It did make me smile when he pointed out that Paxo must have spent years seeing politicians lying to his face.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 24, 2013)

I thought Brand was very good and Paxman was extremely poor. In fact I don't think I have seen Paxman so bad. I generally like him and his questioning but he was quite clearly missing the point. He probably knew he was too, but it was a difficult argument as Brand wasn't really standing for much other than a call for change. Paxman's focus on Brands voting made him look a bit daft because Brand had basically answered him straight away. I imagine Paxo wasn't used to getting answers straight, he is usually gunning on politicians with something to hide. 

Sadly Paxman came across as the bell end, which, against Brand, must feel a bit sore. 

My estimation of Brand has gone up considerably, though I shall not be delving into his 'booky wook' andy time soon.


----------



## catinthehat (Oct 24, 2013)

I thought Brands final hammer home was the point about Paxman doing the ancestor thing and being upset because one of his had been a 'brass' as Brand put it and had experienced unfairness which had upset Paxman - nice simple point about how it becomes 'real' when it is happening to one of your tribe so to speak.  Which is of course often the point at which people do start to get angry - its ok when the people down the road lose their job, get shafted by ATOS etc because they are lazy, undeserving etc but when you know the story and you know the person empathy and anger kick in.  And I guess we are heading for the tipping point where everyone has someone close to them that has been shafted - certainly if you are part of the proletariat lumpen or otherwise.


----------



## poului (Oct 24, 2013)

If people are putting their faith in Russell Brand to spearhead their hopes and dreams of any meaningful change then we're truly fucked.


----------



## Corax (Oct 24, 2013)

ska invita said:


> This is Russell's 'manifesto' in the NEw Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution
> not had a chance to read it yet


I have, and I loved it.

But it won't be embraced, for a reason he briefly addresses in that same article.


> It’s been said that: “The right seeks converts and the left seeks traitors.”


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

He says as he points to traitors


----------



## Corax (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He says as he points to traitors


Erm... sorry?  Who am I pointing to exactly?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

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


----------



## Corax (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


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


You're reading that through very jaded eyes IMO.

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

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

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


----------



## Zabo (Oct 24, 2013)

A damn site more entertaining than Labour's robot Owen - let me hit you with figures - Jones.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2013)

poului said:


> If people are putting their faith in Russell Brand to spearhead their hopes and dreams of any meaningful change then we're truly fucked.


i dont think anyone is doing that.  how many times have you heard anyone having a go the way he did on bbc tv. i can barely think of one. its just makes a nice change is all. a lot of people who feel completely disenfranchised from all elements of public life, especially tv, all of a sudden felt like they were represented for 10mins, and in a passionate way. The reaction to it just goes to show the potential.

this is where a good orator makes a big difference. you'll have to forgive me for mentioning martin luther king jr in the same context, but mlk was only a small part of the civil rights movement, but he was a fantastic orator, and that can play such a valuable part, particularly in the mad media age we live in.

its an old-fashioned technique thats lost somewhat today i think. I heard Michael Albert enthuse about 1920s/30s public speakers and how organisers would be on their soap box day after day and really hone their craft. Doing stand up is like that, as is being a preacher (in the case of MLK). I think George Galloway used to soap box on the Glasgow streets from a young age too (or is that one of his yarns?)

Partly what was impressive about the RB interview was the quickness of the comebacks (ive seen some bitter people complaining it was all staged and scripted) - for someone like me who can be a little slow it comes over very well.

RB doesnt want to be the leader of anything - i think he's very aware of his limitations - he's just using his voice and platform, and fair play to him for doing that. Nothing wrong with rabble rousing - the rabble like to be roused!


----------



## poului (Oct 24, 2013)

ska invita said:


> i dont think anyone is doing that.  how many times have you heard anyone having a go the way he did on bbc tv. i can barely think of one. its just makes a nice change is all. a lot of people who feel completely disenfranchised from all elements of public life, especially tv, all of a sudden felt like they were represented for 10mins, and in a passionate way. The reaction to it just goes to show the potential.
> 
> this is where a good orator makes a big difference. you'll have to forgive me for mentioning martin luther king jr in the same context, but mlk was only a small part of the civil rights movement, but he was a fantastic orator, and that can play such a valuable part, particularly in the mad media age we live in.
> 
> ...



Yep, truly fucked.


----------



## Zabo (Oct 24, 2013)

He spoke a few home truths. The bastard child Jack - What extraordinary rendition? - Straw was on the radio last week defending Mitchell. That sums it up for me as if I needed any summing up.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 24, 2013)

poului said:


> Yep, truly fucked.


cheer up poului, its just 10 mins on a tv programme


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

Corax said:


> You're reading that through very jaded eyes IMO.






Corax said:


> But it won't be embraced, for a reason he briefly addresses in that same article.



fwiw: brand can be very perceptive, and has a fine way of putting across his views - both the newsnight interview and the article were enjoyable. but what have we got at the end of it? erm. change your perceptions, man? WAKE UP? we need a NEW paradigm? seems like a bit of a waste to me. if he'd bothered sticking some politics in at the end there it might have actually made a difference. as it is, it's just an enjoyable rant.


----------



## Corax (Oct 24, 2013)

killer b said:


>


Fair cop, guv.


killer b said:


> fwiw: brand can be very perceptive, and has a fine way of putting across his views - both the newsnight interview and the article were enjoyable. but what have we got at the end of it? erm. change your perceptions, man? WAKE UP? we need a NEW paradigm? seems like a bit of a waste to me. if he'd bothered sticking some politics in at the end there it might have actually made a difference. as it is, it's just an enjoyable rant.


On its own yeah.  But it will have engaged a fair few people into thinking of 'the left' as something other than the media/RW stereotype of unemployed soap-dodging crusties.  He's been building to this stuff for a while, and constructing a platform.  Ideally, he'll work out how best to use it, but only time will tell.

And as he tells Paxman, he's not claiming to have the solutions.  He just wants people to recognise the problem - which would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

do you think he'll have got anyone to recognise 'the problem' who doesn't already? i dunno.


----------



## Corax (Oct 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> do you think he'll have got anyone to recognise 'the problem' who doesn't already? i dunno.


Most I can say on that is "possibly".  Folks our age?  Probably not.  Younguns who are unfixed in their political opinions, pondering Daily Mailesque media headlines and wondering who's to blame - maybe.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

Reading the new statesman and watching newsnight?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 24, 2013)

> It’s been said that: “The right seeks converts and the left seeks traitors.” This moral superiority that is peculiar to the left is a great impediment to momentum


----------



## Corax (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Reading the new statesman and watching newsnight?


YouTube.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

Corax said:


> Most I can say on that is "possibly".  Folks our age?  Probably not.  Younguns who are unfixed in their political opinions, pondering Daily Mailesque media headlines and wondering who's to blame - maybe.


it just looks like preaching to the converted to me mate. it's gone semi-viral today, but who's sharing it? same people who share those 38 degree petitions, retweet owen jones and who urged us to vote lib dem in 2010. the kids seem unmoved as far as i can tell.


----------



## catinthehat (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Reading the new statesman and watching newsnight?


Don't underestimate them.  My lot are hardly ivory towered students - most of them start with zero qualifications and come on the course as its one of the less unpleasant alternatives.  Its a hard slog getting them to read anything but I put this on the course FB page alongside the NS article and it has been the key debate of the day.  Fair enough its not especially sophisticated but we are giving them Marx, Gramsci et al from the pre determined curriculum and stuff like this does help them to catch onto ideas.  Better said - albeit by a bit of a dandy - than not.  Acorns and oak trees and all that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2013)

oh that was good. I don't usually like brand but he had paxman right over there and made a few good points


----------



## Shirl (Oct 24, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Have I seen a different clip to everyone else? People are talking as if some great new political thought outclassed Paxman. All I saw was a millionaire actor spouting some wishy washy new age bollocks with a large smattering of terms straight from Icke. Paxman just looked and sounded bemused.
> 
> "Things are shit and need to change". Well, yeah, thanks for that Russell. Now what?


I think I saw the same clip as you but I turned it off halfway through.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 24, 2013)

It's a popular persons job to say popular and obvious things. Until he gives half of his money away I wouldn't take any of this too seriously.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> oh that was good. I don't usually like brand but he had paxman right over there and made a few good points


 

I'd go no further than that, but it was well worth a watch. Good to see someone so quick thinking leaving Paxman half speechless ...

Paxman's just lazy and bored .... especially so in that clip.

What's this about Brand being a conspiraloon tagger alonger though?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> What's this about Brand being a conspiraloon tagger alonger though?


Have a google for him and Icke, read the NS article, listen to the interview. It's fairly clear where some of his language is coming from.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 24, 2013)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> ore.
> 
> My estimation of Brand has gone up considerably, though I shall not be delving into his 'booky wook' andy time soon.



slighty off rail, but do you know where the term 'booky wook ' comes from ? its not a childish phrase, its part of nadsat


----------



## Geri (Oct 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> it just looks like preaching to the converted to me mate. it's gone semi-viral today, but who's sharing it? same people who share those 38 degree petitions, retweet owen jones and who urged us to vote lib dem in 2010.


 
All the fucking Trots on my Facebook feed


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2013)

Shirl said:


> I think I saw the same clip as you but I turned it off halfway through.


 
The second half was better.


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2013)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> My estimation of Brand has gone up considerably, though I shall not be delving into his 'booky wook' andy time soon.


 
Its really quite a good read.. the second one is abit shit (apparently).


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 25, 2013)

Geri said:


> All the fucking Trots on my Facebook feed



Same, same. 

Demanding corporations pay tax is hardly revolutionary.


----------



## Yata (Oct 25, 2013)

he can be as witty and verbose as he wants, its all for self promotion and he's just a smarter laurie penny at the end of the day and yes hes still best pals with icke


----------



## LiamO (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Reading the new statesman and watching newsnight?



reading facebook and watching Youtube.


----------



## tendril (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


>



I used to be a JW when I was youing (didn't really believe so left at first opportunity) and that picture is scarily like the ones that the JWs use to illustrate their magazines (albeit with less flipping of the bird and soundsystems)


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 25, 2013)

'That 'picture is the inlay / album fold out from the prodigys ' music for the jilted generation'


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 25, 2013)

poului said:


> If people are putting their faith in Russell Brand to spearhead their hopes and dreams of any meaningful change then we're truly fucked.


 

 but he has a voice that we dont and a very loud one. Would you rather nothing was said unless its by someone you deem acceptable?  This isnt to do with wether he is funny or a cunt, the fact is he is saying what a great deal of people are thinking, and this can only be a good thing...


----------



## Geri (Oct 25, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> but he has a voice that we dont and a very loud one. Would you rather nothing was said unless its by someone you deem acceptable?  This isnt to do with wether he is funny or a cunt, the fact is he is saying what a great deal of people are thinking, and this can only be a good thing...


 
The revolution will not be lead from above.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 25, 2013)

tendril said:


> I used to be a JW when I was youing (didn't really believe so left at first opportunity) and that picture is scarily like the ones that the JWs use to illustrate their magazines (albeit with less flipping of the bird and soundsystems)


----------



## poului (Oct 25, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> Would you rather nothing was said unless its by someone you deem acceptable?



How far are you willing to take this principle? Icke's already been mentioned.

What's more ridiculous is that you assume it "can only be a good thing" when a wealthy celeb parrots others in the name of dissent despite clearly being full of shit about it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2013)

poului said:


> How far are you willing to take this principle? Icke's already been mentioned.
> 
> What's more ridiculous is that you assume it "can only be a good thing" when a wealthy celeb parrots others in the name of dissent despite clearly being full of shit about it.


Icke's only been mentioned to tar Brand with association though.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2013)

That Newsnight clip was hilarious  I haven't read the NS article but presumably Brand's now attempting to join the NS Commentariat as the Owen Jones equivalent for the people's revolution?


----------



## xes (Oct 25, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Is he still mates with David Icke?


don't know about Icke, but there's a recent interview of him with Alex "I'M NOT SHOUTING" Jones floating about on youtube.


----------



## poului (Oct 25, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Icke's only been mentioned to tar Brand with association though.



Still not answering the question. Would you be so supportive of someone like David Icke if he was on Newsnight merely because he said a few things along the lines of "greed is bad/people power" etc?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 25, 2013)

poului said:


> How far are you willing to take this principle? Icke's already been mentioned.
> 
> What's more ridiculous is that you assume it "can only be a good thing" when a wealthy celeb parrots others in the name of dissent despite clearly being full of shit about it.


 
so youre saying its better that nothing is said ?

i


----------



## poului (Oct 25, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> so youre saying its better that nothing is said ?



Plenty of stuff's being said all the time.

What are _you_ saying, ruffneck?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 25, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Icke's only been mentioned to tar Brand with association though.


No, Icke has been mentioned because Brand is rather obviously spouting some of his crap.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

WAKE UP


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

catinthehat said:


> Don't underestimate them.  My lot are hardly ivory towered students - most of them start with zero qualifications and come on the course as its one of the less unpleasant alternatives.  Its a hard slog getting them to read anything but I put this on the course FB page alongside the NS article and it has been the key debate of the day.  Fair enough its not especially sophisticated but we are giving them Marx, Gramsci et al from the pre determined curriculum and stuff like this does help them to catch onto ideas.  Better said - albeit by a bit of a dandy - than not.  Acorns and oak trees and all that.


There's two aspects to this - the _uses_ that can be made of Brand's drivel and the drivel _itself_. If you, or anyone is making productive use of his millionaire hippy shit to spark off debate, ask questions, identify problems within it and so on, the great.  What a lot of people appear to be doing though is confusing the justified laughter at his drivel for writing off the possibility of doing the former, of doing what you're doing - when they're not. And i often find hidden within the idea that you shouldn't laugh at his drivel a belief that politically you can only communicate with others through mangled incoherent affective nonsense because, _after all, they're a bit thick and confused aren't they and only respond emotionally._ I think you can take lessons from the way that Brand did get a message across without endorsing that message (and the potential for productive misreading also exists, turning his hippy 'revolution in consciousness' into something far more dangerous) - that's something we _can _learn from.


----------



## poului (Oct 25, 2013)

I'm personally holding out for the Guardian to come out with a swanky line chart detailing the "Brand Effect".


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 25, 2013)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 25, 2013)

poului said:


> What are _you_ saying, ruffneck?


 
why does  matter what i am saying, we are talking about RB and paxman..


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's two aspects to this - the _uses_ that can be made of Brand's drivel and the drivel _itself_. If you, or anyone is making productive use of his millionaire hippy shit to spark off debate, ask questions, identify problems within it and so on, the great.  What a lot of people appear to be doing though is confusing the justified laughter at his drivel for wiring off the possibility of doing the former, of doing what you're doing - when they're not. And i often find hidden within the idea that you shouldn't laugh at his drivel a belief that politically you can only communicate with others through mangled incoherent affective nonsense because, _after all, they're a bit thick and confused aren't they and only respond emotionally._ I think you can take lessons from the way that Brand did get a message across without endorsing that message (and the potential for productive misreading also exists, turning his hippy 'revolution in consciousness' into something far more dangerous) - that's something we _can _learn from.


If the choice is between Brand's "drivel" and your hectoring, arrogant superiority, I know who people would more likely listen to and learn from. But, for you, the ideas of the working class are already fully formed and coherent, no need for any change. oh dear.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Brechin Sprout said:


> If the choice is between Brand's "drivel" and your hectoring, arrogant superiority, I know who people would more likely listen to and learn from. But, for you, the ideas of the working class are already fully formed and coherent, no need for any change. oh dear.


Aside from the fact that i believe no such thing and have said no such thing - and that in the post you quote i specifically identify a process of collective questioning in order to reach collective conclusions. Whereas you, appear to think they need an external helping hand from you and others in order to reach the 'fully formed and coherent' ideas that you have already worked out in advance for them.


----------



## poului (Oct 25, 2013)

Brechin Sprout said:


> If the choice is between Brand's "drivel" and your hectoring, arrogant superiority, I know who people would more likely listen to and learn from. But, for you, the ideas of the working class are already fully formed and coherent, no need for any change. oh dear.



Behold the "Brand Effect"!


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2013)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I thought Brand was very good and Paxman was extremely poor. In fact I don't think I have seen Paxman so bad. I generally like him and his questioning but he was quite clearly missing the point. He probably knew he was too, but it was a difficult argument as Brand wasn't really standing for much other than a call for change. Paxman's focus on Brands voting made him look a bit daft because Brand had basically answered him straight away. I imagine Paxo wasn't used to getting answers straight, he is usually gunning on politicians with something to hide.
> 
> Sadly Paxman came across as the bell end, which, against Brand, must feel a bit sore.
> 
> My estimation of Brand has gone up considerably, though I shall not be delving into his 'booky wook' andy time soon.



I agree, tentatively.  Brand gradually seems to be putting his gift of the gab to better use - we'll see where he takes it.  But Paxman could have done a better job of forcing him to put a bit more substance into it if he'd been less narrowly focussed on the voting question.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

billy_bob said:


> I agree, tentatively.  Brand gradually seems to be putting his gift of the gab to better use - we'll see where he takes it.  But Paxman could have done a better job of forcing him to put a bit more substance into it if he'd been less narrowly focussed on the voting question.


The lack of substance isn't a problem given the message was essentially_ i'm angry and  want everyone else to be angry to, here's why (_which appears to have worked_). _And the very last thing anyone on our side needs is someone like paxman helping put substance into anything. He and people like him are part of the problem.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 25, 2013)

He's beginning to sound a bit like Eric Idle's watery tart guy.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

fwiw i quite like brand & his nonsense, and think on the balance it's probably better to have him talking about this shit than not. but that doesn't mean we have to just accept it uncritically, and not point out the problematic parts - the conspiralunacy, the wooly thinking & lack of actual politics. it isn't a zero sum equation, all or nothing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2013)

of course the real issue here is clubbing together to get paxman some replacement blades for his mach 3


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 25, 2013)

Edit for being a gossipy little tart.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The lack of substance isn't a problem given the message was essentially_ i'm angry and  want everyone else to be angry to, here's why. _And the very last thing anyone on our side needs is someone like paxman helping put substance into anything. He and people like him are part of the problem.



But a part of his message was also _we need a political alternative_.  When you hear anyone saying that, don't you want to know what, if anything, they have in mind? 

I suspect Brand hasn't got that far, though at least he's not using his celebrity to just whine about the tax laws.  But unless someone challenges him to flesh it out, he might be a millionaire hippy shaman self-publicising gobshite who should be ignored, or he might get more people questioning things even if he himself hasn't got much more to offer, or he might have something more substantive to say. Might turn out to be a crypto-fascist - who knows?

You're right about Paxman, but then that's who was interviewing him.  If Brand had laid into him effectively for being a complacent establishment prop that might have been good too....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

billy_bob said:


> But a part of his message was also _we need a political alternative_.  When you hear anyone saying that, don't you want to know what, if anything, they have in mind?
> 
> I suspect Brand hasn't got that far, though at least he's not using his celebrity to just whine about the tax laws.  But unless someone challenges him to flesh it out, he might be a millionaire hippy shaman self-publicising gobshite who should be ignored, or he might get more people questioning things even if he himself hasn't got much more to offer, or he might have something more substantive to say. Might turn out to be a crypto-fascist - who knows?
> 
> You're right about Paxman, but then that's who was interviewing him.  If Brand had laid into him effectively for being a complacent establishment prop that might have been good too....


In all honesty, no, that's probably the last thing i would want to know about. What they are going to do to help me and mine and how they think it can be done, yes please, a worked out political alternative that i had no role in forming, no thanks.

I think any role he could ever play would depend on him _not _having a political alternative.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 25, 2013)

He can talk about revolution, but if the last one didn't last back when people had to die for some rich cunt, there's not much chance of it having legs when they only have to be his valet.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 25, 2013)

I think he's sincere though, if half of the female population wanted to suck ME off, I'd probably have a warm and fuzzy feeling that things are going to get better.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 25, 2013)

Anyone here see mark fisher's facebook page? i think he's got a bit excited!

It goes like this:
22 October

Absolutely exhilarating seeing Russell Brand tonight in Ipswich. Haytaz gotta hate, anarchos gotta whinge and snark, but this was exciting in the same way that seeing Owen Jones up here in Ipswich at the People's Assembly a few weeks ago was - hundreds of people in a provincial town listening to a 90-minute blast against conservatism of every kind, sharing a reality in every way opposed to the one offered by the dominant media. Pro-immigrant, pro-communist, saturated with working class intelligence and not afraid to show it, queer in the way that popular culture used to be (i.e. nothing to do with the sour-faced identitarian piety foisted upon us by moralisers holed up in the vampire's castle of the post-structuralist academic 'left').

Malcolm X, Che, politics as a pyschedelic dismantling of existing reality, communism as something cool, sexy and proletarian, instead of a finger-wagging sermon from someone who went to private school. Horizontalists can stay on the margins, talking to each other. But Brand, like Owen, shows how fame can be used to galvanise, excite and educate people. Remain in the shadows if you like, but the mainstream is there for the taking, if we want it ...

--------------

then

23 October

We're doing it again, we're running rings round these Oxbridge thickos ... Unbelievably fucking good. Unbelievable. What politician has come even close to revealing how slow-witted and smug Paxman is like Brand does here. 'What gives you the authority to speak, you working class oil?' 'There's going to be a revolution, it's GOING TO HAPPEN.'

-
Yesterday

Come on, are we really going to say that Lydon swearing at Bill Grundy is more significant than Brand skewering Paxman with super-sharp working class intelligence for ten minutes? We're in new times, thresholds being crossed ...

Yesterday

And, like clockwork, the posh holier than thou anarchos arrive on twitter to pour a dull grey haze of moralistic resentment over everything ...

-----------------

then shared:

On facebook today from one RRobin Urbanomic 
3 hours ago · Edited

Re: Brand: Usually no sympathiser with "The [self-declared] Left", I'm with Mark on this one. Strange how so many post-post-structuralist queer-theory anti-identitarian collectivist performativity-conscious etc. etc. leftists are so desperate to reduce this to a matter of Brand's personal identity and history. Powerful words spoken, which actually stacked up and did something apart from endlessly feeding back into the kaleidoscope of celebrity (and celebrity-politics) hyperreality. On behalf of those without power, on behalf of the real, in a place of power. Yes, maybe, we can't be sure, with some real effects on people like us who didn't expect or dare hope for it.

At the very least, certainly conveying and encouraging a conviction (all but extinct in the media today) in language and rational thinking as a real force (instead of banners and camping and clowning in the park). And through a performative test rather than an already-defeated pleading to ‘be heard’. Most importantly, not just a first-level enumeration of complaints, but an indefatigable refusal to allow them to be deflated by time-honoured patronising psychological class-war techniques: in fact facing up to the latter with an arsenal of intelligent countertechniques. So whoever he is, whether or not (or to what degree) it was a ‘performance’, it held powerful affect for some of us. To dismiss us as nothing but the shills of false consciousness seems very much like doing power's patch-up work for it.

(i.e.: it is you who are interpreting it as a matter of hero-worship, in order to stamp on our optimism. An optimism which is founded on the full awareness that "persons" are nothing but vehicles for impersonal vectors for thought and action --- which is precisely why, in so far as it has happened, the fact that Brand did this, *after* having done or having been x, y, and z, is a cause for excitement, not deflationary suspicion).


----------



## Geri (Oct 25, 2013)

Who is Mark Fisher?


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And the very last thing anyone on our side needs is someone like paxman helping put substance into anything. He and people like him are part of the problem.



I don't see how Brand is any less of a beneficiary of a corrupt system than Paxo. 
They're both on TV showing off and slagging off politicians.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2013)

Geri said:


> Who is Mark Fisher?


I was just wondering that too.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 25, 2013)

He had to go to Kenya to get his head out of his arse enough to realise Poverty Is Terrible. Bet he doesn't see much of it when he goes to the fucking shops though. He might well have good intentions but having just last week paid 2 million dollars for a US home it can only really remain an abstract for him, can't it? Oooh, poverty's a bit shit..._so I hear._


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2013)

S☼I said:


> He had to go to Kenya to get his head out of his arse enough to realise Poverty Is Terrible. Bet he doesn't see much of it when he goes to the fucking shops though. He might well have good intentions but having just last week paid 2 million dollars for a US home it can only really remain an abstract for him, can't it? Oooh, poverty's a bit shit..._so I hear._



in fairness he's been a regular at protests and sincere enough since before he went to kenya. Before he was famous even. By all means have him over for his bad points but thats not one of them


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> I was just wondering that too.


He wrote the book capitalist realism which was mildly popular among the non-trot left a few years back.  At that time he was defending this quote from Jameson:



> It's now easier to imagine the catastrophic end of human life on earth than it is to imagine a different order of social relations



This sort of ridiculous pessimism then flipped into this:



> Never in my lifetime has capitalist ideology been weaker; neo-liberalism is now played out as a force which has forward momentum (though that isn’t to say that it can’t continue in perpetuity as a zombie). Now isn’t the time to further withdraw from institutions but to reoccupy them. In fact, part of the reason that neo-liberalism became so dominant is that we did withdraw, persuaded that mainstream media was dead and that parliamentary politics was a waste of time. But the very success of neo-liberalism indicates that these things are far from dead. Of course, both parliament and the mainstream media are deeply decadent in the UK, Italy and many other countries, and it will take some time – perhaps a decade at least – before we could make a difference. But it seems to me that, if we want to recover the future, now is the time to re-engage with such institutions.



and now into uncritical and unfettered optimism of the above. Whilst believing:



> that "persons" are nothing but vehicles for impersonal vectors for thought and action



Which is nice of 'him' isn't it?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> in fairness he's been a regular at protests and sincere enough since before he went to kenya. Before he was famous even. By all means have him over for his bad points but thats not one of them



Seems it was more for the buzz than much else.


----------



## xes (Oct 25, 2013)

​


killer b said:


> fwiw i quite like brand & his nonsense, and think on the balance it's probably better to have him talking about this shit than not. but that doesn't mean we have to just accept it uncritically, and not point out the problematic parts - the conspiralunacy, the wooly thinking & lack of actual politics. it isn't a zero sum equation, all or nothing.


even in conspiraloonery world, he's being met with much sceptisism. Everyone thinks he's a plant, or a shill of some kind. (Icke and Jones are pretty widely hated in conspiraland, they have their followers, but mostly they are ignored)


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

xes said:


> ​
> even in conspiraloonery world, he's being met with much sceptisism. Everyone thinks he's a plant, or a shill of some kind. (Icke and Jones are pretty widely hated in conspiraland, they have their followers, but mostly they are ignored)


  you lot are fucking mental.


----------



## xes (Oct 25, 2013)

you have no idea how true that is

(I like the doomderpers the best, and it's doom derp season, this month, we've all died like, at least 5 times, and we've just had an x class flare (think it's earth facng too) so that's going to bring 3 more days of doom derpery)


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2013)

Thanks butchers.


----------



## tendril (Oct 25, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>


 that's the baby


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2013)

tendril said:


> that's the baby




its wrong, the lion should lie down with the lamb not the wolf wit the ram. Fucking JW's


----------



## weepiper (Oct 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its wrong, the lion should lie down with the lamb not the wolf wit the ram. Fucking JW's






			
				Isaiah 11 said:
			
		

> The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2013)

I stand corrected. JW's are still weird tho


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 25, 2013)

ska invita said:


> What politician has come even close to revealing how slow-witted and smug Paxman is like Brand does here. 'What gives you the authority to speak, you working class oil?' .




Paxman was being utterly indulgent to a favoured son.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 25, 2013)

Working class oil. That's a good idea. Drill for victory!


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

chasbo zelena said:


> Paxman was being utterly indulgent to a favoured son.


yeah, he was. there's previous interviews on youtube that are less antagonistic, they're clearly pals.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

The BBC made them both millionaires after all.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In all honesty, no, that's probably the last thing i would want to know about. What they are going to do to help me and mine and how they think it can be done, yes please, a worked out political alternative that i had no role in forming, no thanks.
> 
> I think any role he could ever play would depend on him _not _having a political alternative.



Fair enough.  I wasn't suggesting I was interested in being _provided with_ an alternative by Brand or anyone else, just that I'd want to know what they thought the alternative might involve.


----------



## tendril (Oct 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I stand corrected. JW's are still weird tho


 though tbf, they're not the weirdest of the xtian based religions


----------



## tendril (Oct 25, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Isaiah 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> > The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.


 
you went to sunday school?


----------



## D'wards (Oct 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its wrong, the lion should lie down with the lamb not the wolf wit the ram. Fucking JW's


“The lion will lay down with the lamb, but the lamb won't get much sleep.” Woody Allen


----------



## weepiper (Oct 25, 2013)

tendril said:


> you went to sunday school?



Pfft no, just gathered enough Bible knowledge from having a Catholic Nan and a non-denom school upbringing to recognise the quote


----------



## D'wards (Oct 25, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Pfft no, just gathered enough Bible knowledge from having a Catholic Nan and a non-denom school upbringing to recognise the quote


 I read that as non-demon school, and thought you may be more religious than you let on...


----------



## cantsin (Oct 25, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Have I seen a different clip to everyone else? People are talking as if some great new political thought outclassed Paxman. All I saw was a millionaire actor spouting some wishy washy new age bollocks with a large smattering of terms straight from Icke. Paxman just looked and sounded bemused.
> 
> "Things are shit and need to change". Well, yeah, thanks for that Russell. Now what?



.

 can you point out what Brand, for all his faults, said there that was even vaguely 'new age' ?

Thought it was a good, honest, ranty diatribe that gave a very rare, but accessible airing to the idea that there are viable political alternatives to the rotten parliamentary system, and however abstract the idea of 'revolution' being that alternative may seem coming from a millionaire film star, he's from a working class background, and occasionally ( when he's not on his dafty spiritual mode ) connects with a wide audience in an engaging, likeable manner with some pretty convincing arguments against modern day capitalism - try naming anyone talking that kind of politics, however vague/unformed the arguments may be, who you could have said that about over the last.....50 (random number)  years ?


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2013)

catinthehat said:


> I thought Brands final hammer home was the point about Paxman doing the ancestor thing and being upset because one of his had been a 'brass' as Brand put it and had experienced unfairness which had upset Paxman - nice simple point about how it becomes 'real' when it is happening to one of your tribe so to speak.  Which is of course often the point at which people do start to get angry - its ok when the people down the road lose their job, get shafted by ATOS etc because they are lazy, undeserving etc but when you know the story and you know the person empathy and anger kick in.  And I guess we are heading for the tipping point where everyone has someone close to them that has been shafted - certainly if you are part of the proletariat lumpen or otherwise.


 

The local radio was discussing whether there was growth and how it was affecting people in the area, they had a guy on who was in his 60's but had set up a courier business which was doing well, working 60 hours plus, it was clear the interviewer was waiting for a big diatribe about benefits, etc (he seemed to be willing it) it didn't come: instead the guy talked about his disabled son and the struggles his neighbours etc, were having, tipping point, getting there...


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2013)

Zabo said:


> A damn site more entertaining than Labour's robot Owen - let me hit you with figures - Jones.


 

Still good, but yes, I reckon he will change his delivery now.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

To what? Unfocused anger? Really? Why? Do you think he's competing with Brand or something?


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2013)

billy_bob said:


> But a part of his message was also _we need a political alternative_.  When you hear anyone saying that, don't you want to know what, if anything, they have in mind?
> 
> I suspect Brand hasn't got that far, though at least he's not using his celebrity to just whine about the tax laws.  But unless someone challenges him to flesh it out, he might be a millionaire hippy shaman self-publicising gobshite who should be ignored, or he might get more people questioning things even if he himself hasn't got much more to offer, or he might have something more substantive to say. Might turn out to be a crypto-fascist - who knows?
> 
> *You're right about Paxman, but then that's who was interviewing him.  If Brand had laid into him effectively for being a complacent establishment prop that might have been good too*....


 

Did you ever watch his interview with Michael Howard where he got the man of the night to repeat the same thing thirteen times?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

is he still on his conspiraloon bullshit?


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2013)

> Could Russell Brand stop clowning around and be Britain's Beppe Grillo?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/russell-brand-revolution-britain-beppe-grillo


 
Definitely,  something In this, Brand is not a Jonny come lately(though who knows what happens in his private life!) he was on the mayday protests, etc. Its not my chosen route to social change, but what we have now is worse..


----------



## JimW (Oct 25, 2013)

Wasn't grillo shown to have dodgy fash links, so maybe Brand's flirtations with Icke make the comparison apt, but wouldn't want a five star type movement to be the outcome.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Could he become the focal point for an authoritarian explicitly undemocratic far-right movement movement that attacks public sector workers, wants to ban strikes and privatise everything in site? I think not. Some of you lot need to calm the fuck down.


edit:And to put some meat on that, there is a long tradition of populist-comedian outsider in fast-changing italian political life - they come around every decade, see shit like ordinary-manism. In this countries political traditions, no chance. _Why _did you say you can see a def possibility treelover?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

didn't he give a load of money to david icke? im sorry but that doesn't fill me with a great deal of enthusiasm the last thing we need is more distractions from the coalitions policies and a huge load of money and publicity being given to people with views which have the potential to cause serious problems for myself and people i know.


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Could he become the focal point for an authoritarian explicitly undemocratic far-right movement movement that attacks public sector workers, wants to ban strikes and privatise everything in site? I think not. Some of you lot need to calm the fuck down.
> 
> 
> edit:And to put some meat on that, there is a long tradition of populist-comedian outsider in fast-changing italian political life - they come around every decade, see shit like ordinary-manism. In this countries political traditions, no chance. _Why _did you say you can see a def possibility treelover?


 
because imo, slowly but surely politics is in a state of flux, especially amongst the young, populists could and do raise issues, etc, but of course getting any power in our FPTP system is very unlikely


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> Definitely,  something In this


there really isnt.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> because imo, slowly but surely politics is in a state of flux, especially amongst the young, populists could and do raise issues, etc, but of course getting any power in our FPTP system is very unlikely


That's not really any sort of reply as to why you think as you do is it? Did you notice the grilloists winning lots of seats, whilst brand said voting changes nothing? Just think things through.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 25, 2013)

Geri said:


> No mention of the $2.2 million house he's just bought in the Hollywood hills in that article, I notice.
> 
> Absolute fucking hypocrite.


DO YOU VOTE????


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Paxman is so off his arse engaged he has voted for tories, lib-dems and labour. A model of political engagement.  Pity about the romanian slaves and that.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> because imo, slowly but surely politics is in a state of flux, especially amongst the young, populists could and do raise issues, etc, but of course getting any power in our FPTP system is very unlikely



i dont think that this means this stuff is necessarily a good thing tho, he's a millionaire, how radical do you think he's really gonna be?

conspiraloon stuff really scares me for a lot of reasons, and he's given money to that sort of thing in the past afaik, if he's repudiated those views then fair enough but i suspect he hasn't, i think we could really do without more "figureheads" trying to be populist or whatever a la george galloway etc and especially any associations with that sort of shit


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 25, 2013)

Geri said:


> The revolution will not be lead from above.


But it might get nudged in the right direction by them


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Did you miss the 'revolution (in consciousness)' bit? Someone whose just forked out 2 million quid for a house and who has talked of useful/productive inequality? Where is this person going to nudge anything?


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2013)

> I was getting close to admiring old Oliver for his “calls it as he sees it, balls-out” rhetoric till I read about him on Wikipedia and learned that beyond this brilliant _8 Mile_-style takedown of corrupt politicians he was a right arsehole; starving and murdering the Irish and generally (and surprisingly for a Roundhead) being a total square.


 
Er, weren't the Roundheads basically puritans?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

With ROUND heads.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> Er, weren't the Roundheads basically puritans?


who are you quoting, and where from?


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2013)

> At this point I’d attended a few protests and I loved them. At a Liverpool dockers march, the chanting, the bristling, the rippedup paving stones and galloping police horses in Bono glasses flipped a switch in me.


 
he must have been at the RTS/Dockers March, can't remember any major trouble there, certainly not paving stones, then again I am not going to  'expose' someone who is inspiring people.


----------



## treelover (Oct 25, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> who are you quoting, and where from?


 

Sorry, its the article we are all discussing. Brand in the NS.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> Sorry, its the article we are all discussing. Brand in the NS.


i only got as far as the newsnight clip. that was enough


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> i only got as far as the newsnight clip. that was enough


The article is miles better if you are after something more serious.


----------



## JimW (Oct 25, 2013)

Off topic but mention of Cromwell made me think of one of my fave quotes about him, from his physician (it says when I looked it up):


> A perfect master of all the arts of dissimulation: who, turning up the whites of his eyes, and seeking the Lord with pious gestures, will weep and pray, and cant most devoutly, till an opportunity offers of dealing his dupe a knock-down blow under the short ribs*.*


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The article is miles better.


better as in more fun? or better as in enlightening?


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The article is miles better if you are after something more serious.


Do you like some aspects of the article?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> Do you like some aspects of the article?


Not really. It's filled with banalities about alienation and engagement, soaked through with Ickean wake-upness and not offering much practically.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The article is miles better if you are after something more serious.


I read half. I found the Newsnight interview funny for lots of reasons, but the oratory/stand up skills don't translate well in writing. And that's without paying any attention to the content, just the delivery.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2013)

I stopped reading at the first paradigm.
it was amusing though.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

> For me the solution has to be primarily spiritual and secondarily political.



Worship.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> he must have been at the RTS/Dockers March, can't remember any major trouble there, certainly not paving stones, then again I am not going to  'expose' someone who is inspiring people.


reclaim the streets. you didn't read it properly.


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

There is no in-between.  All are either saints or demons, all their works either gospel or blasphemy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2013)

paradigm AND spiritual
chuck him in a volcano


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Worship.


more 'free your mind and your ass will follow'.


----------



## xes (Oct 25, 2013)

5th denstiy, here we come!!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> more 'free your mind and your ass will follow'.


I wish: this is pure smuggling in of Ickean tropes:



> We now must live in reality, inner and outer. Consciousness itself must change. My optimism comes entirely from the knowledge that this total social shift is actually the shared responsibility of six billion individuals who ultimately have the same interests. Self-preservation and the survival of the planet. This is a better idea than the sustenance of an elite. The Indian teacher Yogananda said: “It doesn’t matter if a cave has been in darkness for 10,000 years or half an hour, once you light a match it is illuminated.” Like a tanker way off course due to an imperceptible navigational error at the offset we need only alter our inner longitude.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> There is no in-between.  All are either saints or demons, all their works either gospel or blasphemy.


Or traitors eh corax?


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

Yes dear.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> There is no in-between.  All are either saints or demons, all their works either gospel or blasphemy.




is there any need for this type of shit? sorry if i've got the wrong end of the stick but this sudden rise of conspiraloon bollocks cloaking itself in a revolutionary garb is something that i find deeply worrying, especially since the people who are promoting it have so much fucking money and will never have to be put in a position where they will have to deal with the results of it. and he's just been given a job in the news statesman - there are pages and page of threads on this site devoted to discussing how the likes of new statesman columnists and the social milieu they are from who use this as a platform to promote themselves and their careers end up fucking up everything and makeing themselves/the causes they're supposedly espousing look like clowns


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Everyone else is shit and can't judge things apart from in black and white terms  -where as you, like the leninist party see all. This was what you were suggesting - for a second time - yes corax?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

in the mean time its fucking news night and the new statesman, does anyone actually watch or read that shit? apart from trots and poeople off here nobody on my facebook is mentioning it?


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Everyone else is shit and can't judge things apart from in black and white terms  -where as you, like the leninist party see all. This was what you were suggesting - for a second time - yes corax?


Bleedin nora - No. 


frogwoman said:


> is there any need for this type of shit? sorry if i've got the wrong end of the stick but this sudden rise of conspiraloon bollocks cloaking itself in a revolutionary garb is something that i find deeply worrying, especially since the people who are promoting it have so much fucking money and will never have to be put in a position where they will have to deal with the results of it. and he's just been given a job in the news statesman - there are pages and page of threads on this site devoted to discussing how the likes of new statesman columnists and the social milieu they are from who use this as a platform to promote themselves and their careers end up fucking up everything and makeing themselves/the causes they're supposedly espousing look like clowns


It was parody.

I clearly should have been less subtle.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> Bleedin nora - No.



What were you parodying? Given your previous traitor posts.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 25, 2013)

> We now must live in reality, inner and outer. Consciousness itself must change. My optimism comes entirely from the knowledge that this total social shift is actually the shared responsibility of six billion individuals who ultimately have the same interests. Self-preservation and the survival of the planet. This is a better idea than the sustenance of an elite. The Indian teacher Yogananda said: “It doesn’t matter if a cave has been in darkness for 10,000 years or half an hour, once you light a match it is illuminated.” Like a tanker way off course due to an imperceptible navigational error at the offset we need only alter our inner longitude.



Fuckin' nora. That's made me feel even more ill than I already am.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuckin' nora. That's made me feel even more ill than I already am.



this thread is like when someone posts some bollocks about "like this page and facebook will donate $1 to breast cancer sufferers" and you say no they wont and they have a go at you and say they were trying to raise awareness


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What were you parodying?


Well it wasn't Brand.


butchersapron said:


> Given your previous traitor posts.


You really are a dishonest and unpleasant individual!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this thread is like when someone posts some bollocks about "like this page and facebook will donate $1 to breast cancer sufferers" and you say no they wont and they have a go at you and say they were trying to raise awareness


It's got the same emotional blackmail as in  that motorboating for cancer thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> It wasn't Brand.
> 
> You really are a dishonest and unpleasant individual.


It was people who criticise brand. The same as your yesterday traitor endorsement. That everyone else is a thicko who can only see heroes and villains. Whereas you, you can see distances.


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was people who criticise brand.


Try again.


butchersapron said:


> The same as your yesterday traitor endorsement. That everyone else is a thicko who can only see heroes and villains. Whereas you, you can see distances.


Yes.  I'm _special_.  That's what I've said isn't it?

The irony of that, coming from you, is *utterly* staggering.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wish: this is pure smuggling in of Ickean tropes:


i'm gonna need this spelling out. i honestly can't see a lot wrong with that quote. i certainly don't see the spectre of icke in it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

indian teachers, yoga bollocks, 6 billion people, consciuousness, inner longitude,


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> Try again.
> 
> Yes.  I'm _special_.  That's what I've said isn't it?
> 
> The irony of that, coming from you, is utterly staggering.


You've endorsed the idea that the left only want traitors whilst calling people traitors, then you later post a quote after criticism of Brand that mocks people who only see saints or sinners. Seems pretty clear.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 25, 2013)

Ok I'm opening myself to abuse saying this but ..., ( I don't believe anything really but like interesting shit)

The media said that 2012 was the end of the world according to the Mayans

I always thought it was the end of a certain kind of way of thinking , hopefully a shift in humanities future , although it's all bollox it's weird how things are changing


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm gonna need this spelling out. i honestly can't see a lot wrong with that quote. i certainly don't see the spectre of icke in it.


The ickean prime motive is the idea of the shifting of consciousness, the coming out of the cave - but not through political struggle but through agreeing with what Icke says. Brand is a long time sympathiser and promoter of icke - the whole piece is drenched in this notion of coming to the light, coming out of the cave.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

how are things changing?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 25, 2013)

And I sold my ton  foil hat to a crack whore 6 years ago


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You've endorsed the idea that the left only want traitors whilst calling people traitors, then you later post a quote after criticism of Brand that suggests you think mock people who only see saints or sinners. Seems pretty clear.


That's neither what Brand's said, nor what I've 'endorsed', nor what I've said.  And part of your post doesn't even make a* blind* bit of sense so I've no clue what it means.  Other than that you're spot on.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 25, 2013)

The internets is finally gathering speed everyone's opinion is easily accessed from anyone , people can hear you voice , and agree or cuss it as they seem appropriate to their own beliefs the world has never had that before killer b


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> That's neither what Brand's said, nor what I've 'endorsed', nor what I've said.  And part of your post doesn't even make a* blind* bit of sense so I've no clue what it means.  Other than that you're spot on.


Try it now christian:


> You've endorsed the idea that the left only want traitors whilst calling people traitors yourself, then, you later post a quote following criticism of Brand, that mocks people who only see saints or sinners. Seems pretty clear.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

he already has a massive platform by the bbc and shit loads of money some of which hes given to david icke ff. would it be all right irf he was a long time supporter of the EDL and gave tommy robinson loads of money to set up a "peoples initiative"?

i find this rage inducing and depressing


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

He's a fallen angel eh corax, oh_ if only the other thickos could recognise his ambiguity - his social meaning - as i do. _


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Try it now christian:


Original reply still applies.


butchersapron said:


> He's a fallen angel eh corax, oh_ if only the other thickos could recognise his ambiguity - his social meaning - as i do. _


That's in your mind only, Meg.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> Original reply still applies.
> 
> That's in your mind only, Meg.


This, was in yours - why don't you own it?



> There is no in-between. All are either saints or demons, all their works either gospel or blasphemy.



Why run away? You either now think it's crap or you still believe it - which is it?


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This, was in yours - why don't you own it?
> 
> 
> 
> Why run away? You either now think it's crap or you still believe it - which is it?


Do you really not get it?  It was a parody of people like *you*.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> Do you really not get it?  It was a parody of *you*.


Oddly enough, yeah, hence the reaction you prat. After me offering a nuanced reading of the brand stuff as well, one that was far beyond anything you offered and certainly not



> There is no in-between. All are either saints or demons, all their works either gospel or blasphemy.



Well done corax. Well done. You didn't offer anything. Cheers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

on this occasion butchers is right sorry


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 25, 2013)

The Paul Mason write-up: http://www.channel4.com/news/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-anti-capitalist-revolution-bbc



> When Russell Brand told Jeremy Paxman there would an anti-capitalist revolution, the comedian was speaking for all those who despise what growing inequality is doing to their lives.
> 
> Russell Brand skewered my old mate Jeremy Paxman last night, on the subject of "revolution". Or rather, they skewered each other. It was one of those rare media occasions where each participant achieves exactly what they want to: Russell to inspire a generation, Jeremy to get a feisty interview with one of the key voices of his age.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

jesus christ corax.


----------



## catinthehat (Oct 25, 2013)

I may be wildly off the mark on the cave front and know little of the content of Ikes conspiracy theories but he is not the first to talk about caves.  In a non 'Welcome to the Peak District' sense.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

if tommy robinson had a celebrity backer who laid into paxman on newsnight, however naivethe person was, and had a new statesman job and called for a revolution then i doubt trots etc would be retweeting his shit, really don't see how this is different quite frankly


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

The disgusting piety of the_ i'm against things - aren't you against things_ mindset.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

catinthehat said:


> I may be wildly off the mark on the cave front and know little of the content of Ikes conspiracy theories but he is not the first to talk about caves.  In a non 'Welcome to the Peak District' sense.


Seriously, these people have take the idea and ran with it, mirrored it with the idea of coming into the light, _you've been trapped by others in a cave_. Forget plato here.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

he's got more working class people talking about revolution than anybody else lately.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 25, 2013)

I thought it was a fun interview - populist to fuck, but this is _Russell Brand the comedian_. He made a lot of good points and did so with genuine passion and elequoence.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

i think mark the taxi driver makes the same points with a lot more eloquence


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> he's got more working class people talking about revolution than anybody else lately.



Not good enough for corax - others must be identified as insufficiently supportive, all the better to get the "There is no in-between. All are either saints or demons, all their works either gospel or blasphemy." tattoo.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i think mark the taxi driver makes the same points with a lot more eloquence



I'm sure there's _tons_ of people who make the same points with a lot more eloquence but they aren't being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and having the link to the interview shared around on social media


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I'm sure there's _tons_ of people who make the same points with a lot more eloquence but they aren't being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and having the link to the interview shared around on social media


This is a problem then isn't it? How are we going to make this stuff real elsewhere? If we don't it's just asking for more people to go on news-night.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is a problem then isn't it? How are we going to make this stuff real elsewhere? If we don't it's just asking for more people to go on news-night.



totally agree, but you know the right spark and all that. The uprising in Istanbul began over the saving of a small, local park but in the process brought up a lot of big political issues and mobilised thousands of people.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I'm sure there's _tons_ of people who make the same points with a lot more eloquence but they aren't being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and having the link to the interview shared around on social media



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


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> totally agree, but you know the right spark and all that. The uprising in Istanbul began over the saving of a small, local park but in the process brought up a lot of big political issues and mobilised thousands of people.



but this isn't about a park being saved this is a millionaire who supports david icke coming onto news night and talking about stuff, why is he in a position to go on it anyway? whe is he on newsnight and we're not? etc


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

General: In peoples daily life - how did this thing become an issue? List the ways here. To me it didn't. To you it might - how?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


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


nobody except the left gives a fuck what laurie penny does.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> nobody except the left gives a fuck what laurie penny does.



exactly


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> nobody except the left gives a fuck what laurie penny does.


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


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I'm sure there's _tons_ of people who make the same points with a lot more eloquence but they aren't being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and having the link to the interview shared around on social media


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


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


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


Oh great, now we're puritans - why did you use this pejorative? It's traitor gait#3. ffs.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


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



er 

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

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

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

he's annoying and not funny 

the end


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


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



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


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


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


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


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


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



lol


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

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


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


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


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


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


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


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


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


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


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


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


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


All valid.

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

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

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

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


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

depends what else he did


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


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


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


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


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


Traitor gait#4. 

Recruit eh?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

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


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


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


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


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


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



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


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

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

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

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


----------



## 8den (Oct 25, 2013)

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


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


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


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


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


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


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


----------



## camouflage (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


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



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


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

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


----------



## camouflage (Oct 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> You're reading that through very jaded eyes IMO.
> 
> There's a lot to like in that article.  And stuff that I disagree with as well.  And then there's the 'lizard' things from previous work...
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


> but this is making him into a figurehead anyway.



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


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


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


_he's a little bit like jesus, if you think about it_


----------



## camouflage (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


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



Zeitgeist. *nods wisely*


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

camouflage said:


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


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


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

camouflage said:


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


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


----------



## camouflage (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


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



Very well, my mistake.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


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


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


----------



## yield (Oct 25, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> _he's a little bit like jesus, if you think about it_


----------



## ska invita (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


> these ideas are actually _already_ what people talk about.


 
to a point - people are getting a bit of pleasure in hearing their general thoughts expressed on tv for once - but also heres a comment from what i always thought of as a fairly apolitical mum of two that came up on my facebook:
he put into words what I struggle to say, thank you
...and there's plenty more in a similar vein on my feed.

not everyones talking politics all the time, or ever even... the video has clocked up over 4million views in 2 days, thats a lot of people with a vast range of states of mind: some of whom find it trivial, some of whom find it spot on, some for whom it expresses something they feel but havent verbalised, and no doubt a bunch of other variables

im not against the depth of analysis of this video and brand - thats why i love urban - id expect nothing less! - but if you take it as just 10 mins of telly he did good without a doubt. what next, if anything, is another subject.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


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


i don't think so. he's all over facebook because he's popular.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

ska invita said:


> to a point - people are getting a bit of pleasure in hearing their general thoughts expressed on tv for once - but also heres a comment from what i always thought of as a fairly apolitical mum of two that came up on my facebook:
> he put into words what I struggle to say, thank you
> ...and there's plenty more in a similar vein on my feed.
> 
> ...


ska, you have put into words what i struggle to say. thank you.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 25, 2013)

killer b said:


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


i tell you a figure head i hate = Paxman as the people's master interrogator. Bullshit - back to the grouse shoot with him


----------



## ska invita (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ska, you have put into words what i struggle to say. thank you.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2013)

poului said:


> Still not answering the question. Would you be so supportive of someone like David Icke if he was on Newsnight merely because he said a few things along the lines of "greed is bad/people power" etc?


You should start a thread about that.   This one is about Brand on Newsnight.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> You should start a thread about that.   This one is about Brand on Newsnight.


So was that reply - what a nice world brand supporters will build.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2013)

ska invita said:


> not everyones talking politics all the time, or ever even...


that's ok, neither's brand. maybe that's why he's so appealing


----------



## ska invita (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> what a nice world brand supporters will build.





butchersapron said:


> Oh great, now we're puritans - why did you use this pejorative? It's traitor gait#3. ffs.


Oh great, now we're "brand supporters". Its traitor gait #4 ffs


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So was that reply - what a nice world brand supporters will build.


Well...butchers...

I listen to what you say...and what you promote.  Very good lots of it.

Then I look at the way you talk to people, the way you treat people.   And I think you're not actually much different from any arrogant tory cunt on the news.

I really don't fancy the world you'd build.  Not at all.   People like you in charge...not much different to the people currently in charge.   It's a lose lose situation for people like me.

Judging by the way you treat people.  On here.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

There _will _be opportunities for you to change your mind. Many of them.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 25, 2013)

I find watching Brand when he is manic quite alarming because it reminds me of what it is like to be manic and that is quite unsettling. He is undoubtedly quick witted and I will grant he can be entertaining. But I recall him from when he was doing the big brother satellite show in which he basically talked crap at supersonic speeds, because of that I still find it hard to take him seriously even when these days he seems increasingly to do so. Good luck to him.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There _will _be opportunities for you to change your mind. Many of them.


Opportunity should be grasped by the aggressor.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

Does anyone think Paxo should shave that beard off ...... I don't think it suits him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2013)

it makes him look like he is three days into a traumatic break up, crapping his M&S undercrackers and neglecting to shave.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I find watching Brand when he is manic quite alarming because it reminds me of what it is like to be manic and that is quite unsettling. He is undoubtedly quick witted and I will grant he can be entertaining. But I recall him from when he was doing the big brother satellite show in which he basically talked crap at supersonic speeds, because of that I still find it hard to take him seriously even when these days he seems increasingly to do so. Good luck to him.


agree with that a lot, and he seems manic all the time...its partly why i dont get annoyed by him as much as by other people who are just ego-driven, as that manicness seems like a real condition - he's kind of out of control of his own life i think... it must be very exhausting for him


----------



## lt35 (Oct 26, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Does anyone think Paxo should shave that beard off ...... I don't think it suits him.


Looks like he's just doing it as his retirement job now


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 26, 2013)

épater la bourgeiosie!


----------



## Corax (Oct 26, 2013)

eoi


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> épater la bourgeiosie!


 
bourgeiosie impress!

this response was brought to you by googly translations Inc


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 26, 2013)

well fair fucking play to Russell Brand. I  have always said that he is a thinker with good political ideals and that he may be a person to kickstart the revolution that England badly needs. I have repeatedly said this on here and people laughed at me, well laugh away, i knew i was right, and i'd LOVE to hear your ideas....

Im also glad that Urbanites that have previously slagged him off or wrote him off as a hapless comedian -which he has never been by the way - are now crawling out of the woodwork to salute him for outclassing a desperate and hapless Jeremy Paxman during that interview

One thing to ALWAYS remember is that Russell is someone who is PROPOSING a revolution (no one else has been massively vocal about it) and he does not or have NEVER posited himself as a revolutionary to lead the people. The haters really need to get a grasp on that. As he explains to Paxman (although well obvious before....) he does not  claim to have a manifesto, or any plans to create one (he is probably capable with others like him, more revolutionary leaders are needed) - i have always said he is not enough, but he is important to get this thing started!!.. So fuck anyone who slags him off for his rhetoric. He did it brilliantly, and articulated what many angry people feel. That is the START.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 26, 2013)

Is it worth watching?  I don't like Brand at all.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

8115 said:


> Is it worth watching?  I don't like Brand at all.


I didn't watch it all, I found I had something more important to do


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

Geri said:


> The revolution will not be lead from above.


Kind of what Russell Brand was saying.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 26, 2013)

8115 said:


> Is it worth watching?  I don't like Brand at all.



yes, watch it!


----------



## yield (Oct 26, 2013)

Cheesypoof said:


> well fair fucking play to Russell Brand. I  have always said that he is a thinker with good political ideals and that he may be a person to kickstart the revolution that England badly needs. I have repeatedly said this on here and people laughed at me, well laugh away, i knew i was right, and i'd LOVE to hear your ideas....


Cheesypoof "he may be a person to kickstart the revolution"

Yes I liked the interview it was a good piece of agitation.

To be fair Brand has always got on my wick.

He is of the bubble, by the bubble. Nothing more.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Oct 26, 2013)

yield said:


> Cheesypoof "he may be a person to kickstart the revolution"
> 
> Yes I liked the interview it was a good piece of agitation.



im glad.




yield said:


> He is of the bubble, by the bubble. Nothing more.



if it be your will.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm pretty pissed off to learn that he gave loads of p's to the 'not an anti semite, honest' Icke. Thats not excusable


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm pretty pissed off to learn that he gave loads of p's to the 'not an anti semite, honest' Icke. Thats not excusable


Doen't Icke believe in things like lizards? .. a nutter surely

Though a quite sane friend talked of him, perhaps he didn't know about the lizards!


----------



## Humberto (Oct 26, 2013)

He's obviously got some linguistic gifts. I think its good if actors, musicians etc have a go at the unsatisfactory present system. Be interesting if he carries on harranguing the establishment. Do I like him? I'm not sure. I think he could have a positive role. 



DotCommunist said:


> I'm pretty pissed off to learn that he gave loads of p's to the 'not an anti semite, honest' Icke. Thats not excusable



Did he? Still give him a chance. Maybe he is just a well known fella with a podium trying his best.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2013)

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=russell+brand+david+icke++people's+voice

the whole thing makes me sick, bbc presenters/tv personalities sitting down with each other and pretending to have arguements with each other before slapping each other on the back and going for a glass of champaigne and a line of coke


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2013)

keep on raking in the cash fellas ...


----------



## yield (Oct 26, 2013)

frogwoman To over egg the pudding.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2013)

There's an unpleasant story about Brand and a member of staff at a West End theatre that he hasn't refuted. Something about him refusing to go onstage until she bared her breasts at him. That's not so pleasant if true.

http://www.thegrindstone.com/2012/0...ardrobe-girl-but-dont-worry-it-was-funny-274/


----------



## Humberto (Oct 26, 2013)

He didn't go on about conspiracy shit though. Maybe he's moved on.


----------



## yield (Oct 26, 2013)

Humberto said:


> He didn't go on about conspiracy shit though. Maybe he's moved on.


I doubt it. I can only hope.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm sort of inclined to buy the Brand-edited copy of the NS out of interest. I only very rarely buy it, but it might be good to see not just his writing in it (haven't even got as far as checking the links for that yet anyway). But to see the content he's brought in from others.

Any good?


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Oct 26, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Doen't Icke believe in things like lizards? .. a nutter surely
> 
> Though a quite sane friend talked of him, perhaps he didn't know about the lizards!


So someone who has mental health issues has absolutely nothing to contribute to current discourse? Because he believes in lizards, everything he says is rubbish? How medieval.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Brechin Sprout said:


> So someone who has mental health issues has absolutely nothing to contribute to current discourse? Because he believes in lizards, everything he says is rubbish? How medieval.


He almost said they should be put in death camps/or that peoples mental health issues should be borne in mind. 

Jump on me old man.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm pretty pissed off to learn that he gave loads of p's to the 'not an anti semite, honest' Icke. Thats not excusable


How much did he give?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't see Paxman as a man of chang. More like a self flagellator. Brand, well we know he likes a sniff.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> How much did he give?


He set up a TV channel with them ffs.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

Favelado said:


> There's an unpleasant story about Brand and a member of staff at a West End theatre that he hasn't refuted. Something about him refusing to go onstage until she bared her breasts at him. That's not so pleasant if true.
> 
> http://www.thegrindstone.com/2012/0...ardrobe-girl-but-dont-worry-it-was-funny-274/


Story published by The Sun from an anonymous source and iirc contradicted by Billy Connelly, who was supposed to have been involved.

Here: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...n-just-dont-mention-piers-morgan-8412113.html

_"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.""_


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He set up a TV channel with them ffs.


All I can find online is the following quote on the indiegogo site:

_"I am excited by David's new venture. We all complain about media bias and now we will have an outlet beholden only to the people. I think it will be crazy and fun and I hope to be on it."_

I am asking how much he donated and what other involvement he has had in setting it up? Any details? Or just a one line endorsement?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2013)

"mind shift with russell brand and eve ensler"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> All I can find online is the following quote on the indiegogo site:
> 
> _"I am excited by David's new venture. We all complain about media bias and now we will have an outlet beholden only to the people. I think it will be crazy and fun and I hope to be on it."_
> 
> I am asking how much he donated and what other involvement he has had in setting it up? Any details? Or just a one line endorsement?


A multi-year endorsment, a multi-let me help you oj tv sand radio and out your shit forward as acceptble. OIK no money i can show (for now, i think he obv did), but if not, doesn't that make him look like a bottler who refuses to pay for the truth to be out out there?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2013)

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=russell+brand+people's+voice


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> "mind shift with russell brand and eve ensler"


I've just watched 5 minutes of that. Did you have a reason for posting that?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

_Everyones got to be really nice
_
That bit?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A multi-year endorsment, a multi-let me help you oj tv sand radio and out your shit forward as acceptble.


Can you give a link to that? All I can find is the one-liner I quoted above.
As for my question about money, I was wiondering what the source for this was:


DotCommunist said:


> I'm pretty pissed off to learn that he gave loads of p's to the 'not an anti semite, honest' Icke. Thats not excusable


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Everyones got to be really nice
> _
> That bit?


Oh I thought it might be the bits about the lizards and illuminati.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Can you give a link to that? All I can find is the one-liner I quoted above.
> As for my question about money, I was wiondering what the source for this was:


Can i give links to brand inviting icke on his show, on the tv, on the radio, of appearing with him - yes. I presume that you are not an idiot though. Why didn't you search before?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Oh I thought it might be the bits about the lizards and illuminati.


If you are not going to take his rantings seriously then why are we here? You asked a question, you got an answer


----------



## badseed (Oct 26, 2013)

Favelado said:


> There's an unpleasant story about Brand and a member of staff at a West End theatre that he hasn't refuted. Something about him refusing to go onstage until she bared her breasts at him. That's not so pleasant if true.
> 
> http://www.thegrindstone.com/2012/0...ardrobe-girl-but-dont-worry-it-was-funny-274/



I don't know much about Brand, and don't want to be some kind of apologist, but here you go (skip to 2.16):


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can i give links to brand inviting icke on his show, on the tv, on the radio, of appearing with him - yes. I presume that you are not an idiot though. Why didn't you search before?


What have any of those got to do with how much money Brand has donated to Icke?


butchersapron said:


> OIK no money i can show


Seems like you can't find any details either.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

They establish an identity of interest. Which DID NOT TRANSLATE INTO FINANCIAL HELP. As far as we mugs know. Is that better for you cd?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If you are not going to take his rantings seriously then why are we here? You asked a question, you got an answer


I asked frogwoman why she had linked to it and got an answer from you.

I didn't say anything about how seriously or otherwise I took his joke about lizards on that clip.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> I asked frogwoman why she had linked to it and got an answer from you.
> 
> I didn't say anything about how seriously or otherwise I took his joke about lizards on that clip.


I didn't mention lizards.

At this point you were doing ok, you hadn't yet shown yourself to be a humourless prick. Do you want to go back to that point? Would that be nice?  Start again? Tough shit.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2013)

i thought i had read something about donating money, iy seems i may have been mistaken, however he set up the thing with him and encouraged people to donate, hes been on the show loads of times, etc


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...humourless prick...


Sorry did you tell a joke or something? 

It's kind of hard to tell what you are going on about. Start what again? What are you going on about?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Sorry did you tell a joke or something?
> 
> It's kind of hard to tell what you are going on about. Start what again? What are you going on about?


Why did you bring no one talking about lizards into it? Have look at who talked about lizards. Was this your honeymoon suite as well? Maybe there are lizards, better check. For Lizards.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i thought i had read something about donating money, iy seems i may have been mistaken, however he set up the thing with him and encouraged people to donate, hes been on the show loads of times, etc


Thanks for the reply. Like I said, all I can find online is that one statement. Saying "hope to be in on it" kind of suggests that he wasn't really setting it up or definitely involved. So far I've only found Icke on Brand's radio show from 2008 radio show and his BrandX TV show this year. Any more I am missing?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why did you bring no one talking about lizards into it? Have look at who talked about lizards. Was this your honeymoon suite as well? Maybe there are lizards, better check. For Lizards.


No sorry, still get what you are talking about. I literally don't understand what you have just posted. Can anyone else help me out here?


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> I've just watched 5 minutes of that. Did you have a reason for posting that?




I just watched that


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 26, 2013)

I just googled 'Brand & Icke' - there's loads of it


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I just googled 'Brand & Icke' - there's loads of it


I saw lots of results referring to the same small number of things - ie two interviews. Also Icke posts lots of links to Brand's stuff and that appears as well plus when people on the Icke forums post about Brand.

Although Brand says he 'likes' a lot of what Icke has written, he has also said he doesn't believe in the lizard stuff or the illuminati stuff and seems sceptical about any coordinated 'worldwide conspiracy', so what exactly does that leave from Icke's stuff?

Although Brand does talk about 'spirituality' and 'consciousness' etc. I can't quite see what he is saying that is the same as Icke. I understand that people (eg frogwoman) hate Icke due to anti-semitism etc but I can't really see how this directly applies to anything Brand has come out with.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Thanks for the reply. Like I said, all I can find online is that one statement. Saying "hope to be in on it" kind of suggests that he wasn't really setting it up or definitely involved. So far I've only found Icke on Brand's radio show from 2008 radio show and his BrandX TV show this year. Any more I am missing?


 


classicdish said:


> I saw lots of results referring to the same small number of things - ie two interviews. Also Icke posts lots of links to Brand's stuff and that appears as well plus when people on the Icke forums post about Brand.
> 
> Although Brand says he 'likes' a lot of what Icke has written, he has also said he doesn't believe in the lizard stuff or the illuminati stuff and seems sceptical about any coordinated 'worldwide conspiracy', so what exactly does that leave from Icke's stuff?
> 
> Although Brand does talk about 'spirituality' and 'consciousness' etc. I can't quite see what he is saying that is the same as Icke. I understand that people (eg frogwoman) hate Icke due to anti-semitism etc but I can't really see how this directly applies to anything Brand has come out with.


this is exactly the way i remember it from when this subject came up last time, the connection was a weak one. Happy to be proved wrong on that, but there's already been a long thread on this topic and I dont remember anything particularly damning being posted on that. Maybe i missed it.
ive never heard RB say anything conspiraloony. 

And yeah Brands spirituality is based on him necking loads of psychedelics in the early 90s and getting into eastern religious  philosophies a bit... as did a lot of people at the time.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

I've just listened to this 27 minute youtube of Brand being interviewed by Alex Jones/Infowars. I understand why people could object to him actually going on the programme in the first place, however...

...I didn't hear anything said by Brand that was 'conspiracy-theory' type stuff or nonsensical. He actually says at the end that he is very influenced by socialism and marxism rather than libertarianism, and the whole way through he is saying that the dominant narratives of government, big business, money and the media need to be challenged - that seems to be what he means by a new consciousness and spirituality etc. - and replaced with narratives that look after people (above all the poorest and least powerful) and the planet.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> didn't he give a load of money to david icke? im sorry but that doesn't fill me with a great deal of enthusiasm the last thing we need is more distractions from the coalitions policies and a huge load of money and publicity being given to people with views which have the potential to cause serious problems for myself and people i know.



He did? Not heard that before, any links on this?


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2013)

tbh my objection is that he has any connection to _these people_ ()at all. going on infowars, saying he likes some of ickes ideas, whatever, does help legitimise them, even if he's critical of their more outre pronouncements. 

i don't think it necessarily means brand himself is beyond the pale, or that his recent interventions can't be useful. but i think it does mean we need to look quite carefully at what he's saying: and his language in both the article and the interview is full of the language of the conspiracy nut - about waking up, paradigm shifts and the like. which makes me a little uneasy.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

Brechin Sprout said:


> So someone who has mental health issues has absolutely nothing to contribute to current discourse? Because he believes in lizards, everything he says is rubbish? How medieval.


Does Icke have MH issues? I had no idea.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

killer b said:


> ...and his language in both the article and the interview is full of the language of the conspiracy nut - about waking up, paradigm shifts and the like...


'Paradigm shift' is a very mainstream term from the philosophy of science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
As for 'waking up' - is it any more 'conspiracy-like' than the Marxist concept of False Consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness ?

Brand keeps saying the dominant narratives of government, big business, money and the media need to be overthrown. How is this any more a 'conspiracy theory' than what socialists/communists/anarchists etc say?


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2013)

when it comes from someone that we know rubs shoulders with a load of conspiracy nuts, then i think it is questionable.


----------



## lt35 (Oct 26, 2013)

Deleted: off-topic opinionated toss


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Does Icke have MH issues? I had no idea.


Apparently "In a low-key admission at the end of the book, he says he was finally diagnosed with bipolar disorder" source

_<EDIT: sorry got this wrong - it's Russell Brand who has a bipolar diagnosis, not David Icke>_

FWIW other people named on that list who have links to politics include:

Abbie Hoffman,
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Patrick J. Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln
Friedrich Nietzsche
Michael Costa
Neil Cole
Alastair Campbell


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Apparently "In a low-key admission at the end of the book, he says he was finally diagnosed with bipolar disorder" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_bipolar_disorder#B
> 
> FWIW other people named on that list who have links to politics include:
> 
> ...


 
Oh, Ok. thanks for that .. I don't know much about Icke. I have bipolar but I don't believe in Lizards 

I am not sure about Alistair Campbell, I know he had what he described as a breakdown but I have never heard him remark on it other than as that - a nervous breakdown, I never heard him say it was bipolar.

eta: of course the very best people do have bipolar !!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 26, 2013)

killer b said:


> tbh my objection is that he has any connection to _these people_ ()at all. going on infowars, saying he likes some of ickes ideas, whatever, does help legitimise them, even if he's critical of their more outre pronouncements.
> 
> i don't think it necessarily means brand himself is beyond the pale, or that his recent interventions can't be useful. but i think it does mean we need to look quite carefully at what he's saying: and his language in both the article and the interview is full of the language of the conspiracy nut - about waking up, paradigm shifts and the like. which makes me a little uneasy.



Think the association thing is a fair point.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

killer b said:


> when it comes from someone that we know rubs shoulders with a load of conspiracy nuts, then i think it is questionable.


You say "we need to look quite carefully at what he's saying". 

So can you point anything specific he has said that puts him into the category of 'conspiracy theorist' or similar?


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2013)

Well, I'm not sure if he is a conspiracy theorist. But he's happy to associate with famously anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, and uses language which is common in the conspiracy theorist milieu. that's enough for me to treat anything he says with a certain amount of suspicion.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I am not sure about Alistair Campbell, I know he had what he described as a breakdown but I have never heard him remark on it other than as that - a nervous breakdown, I never heard him say it was bipolar.


He describes himself as 'a depressive' but here he says _"my novel, All In The Mind, is based on my experiences of depression and psychosis"_ and he has described how he went 'manic' during a breakdown at one point.

In this article he describes the episode.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> He describes himself as 'a depressive' but here he says _"my novel, All In The Mind, is based on my experiences of depression and psychosis"_


Oh, ok ... he is certainly clear evidence, if any was needed, that people with mental health issues can often make excellent recoveries and cope with jobs of a significant nature.


----------



## lazythursday (Oct 26, 2013)

There is an alternative explanation to this - one I'm not entirely convinced of but worth considering. Brand is quite deliberately filching some of the language and approach of the conspiraloons and using them to promote left wing ideas. Given that for an awful lot of younger people, those are often the main sorts of 'radical' political ideas they are exposed to, perhaps it's not a bad idea. Certainly Brand's article manages to energetically push the need to change without using all the usual tired far left jargon and god it feels like that's been a long time coming. And maybe he did dabble with conspiraloonery / saw it as a bit of a laugh and has now seen the light?

I do share everyone's frustrations that the media only allow these sorts of views to be presented by a well connected multi millionaire etc... but anything that pushes debate leftwards has to be a positive - he could be creating some space for others to step into in the future.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> 'Paradigm shift' is a very mainstream term from the philosophy of science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
> As for 'waking up' - is it any more 'conspiracy-like' than the Marxist concept of False Consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness ?
> 
> Brand keeps saying the dominant narratives of government, big business, money and the media need to be overthrown. How is this any more a 'conspiracy theory' than what socialists/communists/anarchists etc say?


Do you think he got the first from reading Kuhn's long winded rather complex treatise or through Icke's repeated used of the phrase?

As for the second, no marxist beyond the crudest sort of idiot has believed any such thing for 100 years. In fact, they've developed a whole host of reasons for why such thinking is bollocks.


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 26, 2013)

Maybe he could pour some of that rat shit coffee on his head and set himself on fire. As a statement like.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> No sorry, still get what you are talking about. I literally don't understand what you have just posted. Can anyone else help me out here?


This is all very simple. Which is lucky for you.

Frogwoman posted a video. You asked if she had a reson for doing so. I posted a laughable quote from it that directly related to this thread and discussions therein. You then mentioned lizards and the Illuminati for some reason. You didn't respond to the political idiocy that i brought up from Brand and it maybe being among the reasons why frogwoman posted it. You went on about Lizards.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Has anyone backlash tmed the brand backlash yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> You say "we need to look quite carefully at what he's saying".
> 
> So can you point anything specific he has said that puts him into the category of 'conspiracy theorist' or similar?


Yes,_ i like icke._

And here is the problem, people like you are now going to always use him to make any debate centre around conspiracy stuff  - to try and make conspiracy stuff out to just be mainstream questioning. If you're not from that perspective, then you need to sharpen up both your research and your thinking. because these conspiracy theorists are going to walk all over you otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> You say "we need to look quite carefully at what he's saying".
> 
> So can you point anything specific he has said that puts him into the category of 'conspiracy theorist' or similar?


Can you point to him specifically saying here is a load of millionaire hippy shit?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

btw, alan sugar, voice of the w/c - because he used to not be a very rich man. He _shares _our concerns.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Oh, Ok. thanks for that .. I don't know much about Icke. I have bipolar but I don't believe in Lizards


Sorry I got things confused - I meant Russell Brand has been diagnosed with bipolar.

David Icke - well I can't find any diagnosis but has described "hearing voices" from back in 1991 onwards. A lot of people think he is mentally ill but it doesn't really matter - someone's ideas can stand or fall on their own merits. Maybe he has come up with all his shit due to schizophrenia, maybe he is just so far up his own arse he can't find the way out, maybe he is cynically pandering to a specific market to make money or maybe he has a nasty 'semi-hidden' neo-fascist political agenda - but whichever one it is his ideas are a crock of shit any way you look at them.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Sorry I got things confused - I meant Russell Brand has been diagnosed with bipolar.


Oh, well, that perhaps explains his hyper-ness (Brand's) when talking and why I get alarmed when I see him.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Sorry I got things confused - I meant Russell Brand has been diagnosed with bipolar.
> 
> David Icke - well I can't find any diagnosis but has described "hearing voices" from back in 1991 onwards. A lot of people think he is mentally ill but it doesn't really matter - someone's ideas can stand or fall on their own merits. Maybe he has come up with all his shit due to schizophrenia, maybe he is just so far up his own arse he can't find the way out, maybe he is cynically pandering to a specific market to make money or maybe he has a nasty 'semi-hidden' neo-fascist political agenda - but whichever one it is his ideas are a crock of shit any way you look at them.


Great idea for Brand to repeatedly and publicly associate himself with them then.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 26, 2013)

I am really fucking unimpressed that a number of people I thought were quite sensible are prepared to totally set aside his nasty power-trip stuff over several women because it's _Russell_, he's lovely really, he's just misunderstood, can't you just stop being so _negative_ about him? No, I can't. He's a cunt, and I'm going to call a cunt a cunt when I see one.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 26, 2013)

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you think he got the first from reading Kuhn's long winded rather complex treatise or through Icke's repeated used of the phrase?


From the same wikipedia article: _"Since the 1960s, the term has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences." _There is nothing specifically "conspiracy theorist" or 'Ickian' about the term 'paradigm shift'.


> As for the second, no marxist beyond the crudest sort of idiot has believed any such thing for 100 years.


I asked "is it any more 'conspiracy-like' than the Marxist concept of False Consciousness"? You obviously think Brand is wrong but you haven't given any quotes or reasons to think he is a 'conspiracy theorist'.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...I posted a laughable quote from it that directly related to this thread and discussions therein. You then mentioned lizards and the Illuminati for some reason...


They were both mentioned (humourously) in the video clip. You probably didn't even watch more than the first 20 seconds did you? Seems like you are the one who doesn't have a clue after all.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> From the same wikipedia article: _"Since the 1960s, the term has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences." _There is nothing specifically "conspiracy theorist" or 'Ickian' about the term 'paradigm shift'.
> I asked "is it any more 'conspiracy-like' than the Marxist concept of False Consciousness"? You obviously think Brand is wrong but you haven't given any quotes or reasons to think he is a 'conspiracy theorist'.


There is when it's use is Icke derived. As it is in this case.

I know that you asked that - i pointed out that the question is outdated nonsense, made redundant by a paradigm shift. Let me ask you, do you think he is conspiracy theory free given his long standing (and now evidenced for you many times) relationship with Icke and conspiracy theories?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Has anyone backlash tmed the brand backlash yet?


More gibberish?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> They were both mentioned (humourously) in the video clip. You probably didn't even watch more than the first 20 seconds did you? Seems like you are the one who doesn't have a clue after all.


Of course i didn't, i watched it until the quote i used came up then i asked you about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> More gibberish?


No, a comment on recuperation. Keep up.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes,_ i like icke._


No, a throw-away remark like that doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist. Especially when there is plenty of more detailed things he has said to look at and quote.


> And here is the problem, people like you are now going to always use him to make any debate centre around conspiracy stuff  - to try and make conspiracy stuff out to just be mainstream questioning. If you're not from that perspective, then you need to sharpen up both your research and your thinking. because these conspiracy theorists are going to walk all over you otherwise.


No I haven't made the debate centre around conspiracy stuff - other people have dragged that into this thread as a criticism of Brand. I just don't buy it. Nothing in the details of what he has said sounds like conspiracy theory. 

Conspiracy theory stuff is a load of shite, I don't accept that it is just 'mainstream' and I have not said it is. What Russell Brand has been saying however isn't 'conspiracy theory stuff'.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

So a person with long association with conspiracy loons and conspiracy theories says something choc full of classic conspiracy tropes but because he doesn't openly and formally say _here is the conspiracy loon bit _you think there is therefore no loon derivation. You utter mug.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> No, a throw-away remark like that doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist. Especially when there is plenty of more detailed things he has said to look at and quote.



In what way does the existence of him saying other non-conspiracy stuff mean that everything he says is conspiracy free? What sort of logic is this?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

It's marvelous that w/c is now whittled down to _accent _isn't it? Esp nice to see our two class friends adopt this nonsense.


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2013)

hey, you should come over to facebook, we've got radical feminists lining up to defend him over there!


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> in the mean time its fucking news night and the new statesman, does anyone actually watch or read that shit? apart from trots and poeople off here nobody on my facebook is mentioning it?


 
usually, but this time its everywhere, social media, global broadcast media, probably a 48 hour phenomenon, though already people are discussing setting up groups based on his ideas


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

killer b said:


> hey, you should come over to facebook, we've got radical feminists lining up to defend him over there!


Thing is, he doesn't need defending - he just needs putting in proper informed context and i don't get why classic dish is so opposed to this. I've just been told of one horrible 'defence' by an ex-poster from here who i have a lot of time for (this is on facebook, so you may have seen it).


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So a person with long association with conspiracy loons and conspiracy theories says something choc full of classic conspiracy tropes but because he doesn't openly and formally say _here is the conspiracy loon bit _you think there is therefore no loon derivation. You utter mug.


So what are these "classic conspiracy tropes" you are talking about?

Can you give me some quotes or even just paraphrase what he said? A link to an article? Something?


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> if tommy robinson had a celebrity backer who laid into paxman on newsnight, however naivethe person was, and had a new statesman job and called for a revolution then i doubt trots etc would be retweeting his shit, really don't see how this is different quite frankly


 
Robison is so anti left/communist its bizarre, he was on RT a few days ago, going on about the left in Europe,

btw, its clear he sees a role in the global anti-jihad movement if at the more 'moderate(and lucrative) end.


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I'm sure there's _tons_ of people who make the same points with a lot more eloquence but they aren't being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight and having the link to the interview shared around on social media


 
Apparently, RB has 7 million followers on twitter where he is now furiously posting political stuff, links, quoting Shelley, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> So what are these "classic conspiracy tropes" you are talking about?
> 
> Can you give me some quotes or even just paraphrase what he said? A link to an article? Something?


Have you read the mainfesto from the new statesman? Have you watched the various vids posted on this thread and the previous one? The long supportive radio interviews with icke?  I shall ask again, do you see no conspiracy thought derived ideas in his views?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In what way does the existence of him saying other non-conspiracy stuff mean that everything he says is conspiracy free? What sort of logic is this?


Because, 'you mug', saying "I like Icke" doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist, and you seem completely unable to find any actual quotes from his several lengthy interviews and articles where he gioes into far more detail about what he believes. 

You are just sitting here repeating yourself over and over with no evidence to back up anything you are saying. What kind of logic is that?

You really are a waste of time aren't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Apparently, RB has 7 million followers on twitter where he is now furiously posting political stuff, links, quoting Shelley, etc.


Furiously posting on twitter. Marvelous. Did you bother to look btw - because he isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Because, 'you mug', saying "I like Icke" doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist, and you seem completely unable to find any actual quotes from his several lengthy interviews and articles where he gioes into far more detail about what he believes.
> 
> You are just sitting here repeating yourself over and over with no evidence to back up anything you are saying. What kind of logic is that?
> 
> You really are a waste of time aren't you?


A man steeped in conspiracy thought, publicly associating with famous conspiracy loons, openly promoting conspiracy thought miraculously managed to write long winded wooly 'revolution in consciousness ' piece that literally mirrors the views of the conspiracy loons without any conspiracy loon influence. How naive are you? Close your eyes and all will be nice cd. Just close your eyes.


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Thing is, he doesn't need defending - he just needs putting in proper informed context and i don't get why classic dish is so opposed to this. I've just been told of one horrible 'defence' by an ex-poster from here who i have a lot of time for (this is on facebook, so you may have seen it).


probably. i may be arguing with them about it right now. i should probably take the kids to the park instead tbh.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 26, 2013)

killer b said:


> probably. i may be arguing with them about it right now. i should probably take the kids to the park instead tbh.



I've given up on that one. Still surprised at it though.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Because, 'you mug', saying "I like Icke" doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist, and you seem completely unable to find any actual quotes from his several lengthy interviews and articles where he gioes into far more detail about what he believes.
> 
> You are just sitting here repeating yourself over and over with no evidence to back up anything you are saying. What kind of logic is that?
> 
> You really are a waste of time aren't you?


O i get it how it workds now:  I like brand and what he says. I don't like conspiracy theories and that shit. Therefore what Brand says has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Because I like brand and what he says and don't like conspiracy theories and that shit


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have you read the mainfesto from the new statesman? Have you watched the various vids posted on this thread and the previous one? The long supportive radio interviews with icke?  I shall ask again, do you see no conspiracy thought derived ideas in his views?


Yes I have read his article in the New Statesman, I have listened to both the Youtubes where Brand interviews Icke and also the one where Brand was interviewed by Jones and the one frogwoman posted.

In the ones with Icke he lets Icke talk about his books and theories, but he doesn't actually say how much he agrees with. He has said elsewhere that he doesn't believe in Ickes lizards, illuminati or big conspiracy so what does that actually leave out of Icke's stuff?

In the ones where Brand is being interviewed he has said stuff much along the lines he did with Paxman - that the world is currently being run in the interests of the rich and powerful, by governments, big business and money with a complaint media. He has said that this 'paradigm' needs to change - in favour of one that is in the interest of people, especially the poorest and least powerful, and the natural environment. He also sees 'spirituality' as being an important part of this, by which he means not being selfish and excessively materialist.

So no, I don't see which part of his views are derived from conspiracy theories, and I am still waiting for you to actually back up what you are claiming.


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> O i get it how it workds now:  I like brand and what he says. I don't like conspiracy theories and that shit. Therefore what Brand says has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Because I like brand and what he says and don't like conspiracy theories and that shit


 This seems to be the argument. Message with no mind to the medium.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...piece that literally mirrors the views of the conspiracy loons...


Mirrors? care to actually back that up rather than simply repeat the claim endlessly?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Mirrors? care to actually back that up rather than simply repeat the claim endlessly?


FFs you've even tried to explain two of the tropes back to us. Why did you do that if they don't exist?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> O i get it how it workds now:  I like brand and what he says. I don't like conspiracy theories and that shit. Therefore what Brand says has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Because I like brand and what he says and don't like conspiracy theories and that shit


O i get how it works now: I don't like brand and what he says. I don't like conspiracy theories and that shit. Therefore what Brand says is a mirror of conspiracy theories. Because I don't like brand and what he says and don't like conspiracy theories and that shit.

Yeah you really are a genuius aren't you. Mug


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> FFs you've even tried to explain two of the tropes back to us. Why did you do that if they don't exist?


You are useless. Go away and try harder. Think about what you are posting. Think.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> O i get how it works now: I don't like brand and what he says. I don't like conspiracy theories and that shit. Therefore what Brand says is a mirror of conspiracy theories. Because I don't like brand and what he says and don't like conspiracy theories and that shit.
> 
> Yeah you really are a genuius aren't you. Mug


You've not quite grasped the positives that i've found in Brand's millionaire hippy drivel have you? Which sort of messes up your little model. As does the fact that there are demonstrable links between what he says and conspiracy theory approaches - as you yourself helpfully demonstrated when you decided to point out that what looks like conspiracy theory stuff is actually derived from marxism and long winded philosophical histories of science, rather then the much closer to home Icke.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2013)

I know you are. You said you are. You can't say it back.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> You are useless. Go away and try harder. Think about what you are posting. Think.


Genius stuff. I  shall have to pay more attention to you. This is how it goes. Brand uses a clearly icke derived trope. You spot this and argue that it actually comes from his reading of Thomas Kuhn. Not Icke. Who he has long term associations with and who hammers the phrase. Because that would be a crazy thing to suggest. Of course, in putting this argument forward you only highlight that conspiracy theory derived nature of the usage. Think. No, actually, don't.


----------



## xenon (Oct 26, 2013)

The fawning over Brand is a bit sickening. Just safe contained opisition. Get some outspoken albeit eloquent clown. There's the voice of the opposition, this is your spokesman. Now back in your box.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Genius stuff. I  shall have to pay more attention to you.


Thank fuck for that. 

Good luck with your gibberish btw.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Wake up! Open your eyes! Tell Truth! Don't mention that bit over there, pretend you didn't see it!


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Brand uses a clearly icke derived trope. You spot this and argue that it actually comes from his reading of Thomas Kuhn. Not Icke. Who he has long term associations with and who hammers the phrase. Because that would be a crazy thing to suggest. Of course, in putting this argument forward you only highlight that conspiracy theory derived nature of the usage. Think. No, actually, don't.


So your argument that using the word "paradigm" is an 'icke derived trope'. 

There are millions of places he would have seen that word used outside of Icke.

Is this really the best you can do? You can't find one single quote?

You can't even paraphrase any of Brand's arguments?

You are pathetic. Thankfully you are not going to respond to me with any more gibberish.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wake up! Open your eyes! Tell Truth! Don't mention that bit over there, pretend you didn't see it!


Who are you talking to mate?

Hope your not 'paying any more attention to me'!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 26, 2013)

A couple of analysis's here worth reading

Russell Brand, revolution and pragmatis: http://libcom.org/blog/russel-brand-revolution-pragmatism-24102013?page=1

Brief remarks on Russell Brand: http://attemptsatliving.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/brief-remarks-on-russell-brand/


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> So your argument that using the word "paradigm" is an 'icke derived trope'.
> 
> There are millions of places he would have seen that word used outside of Icke.
> 
> ...


You brought that case up not me. Presumably because you recognised that it so closely chimes with Brands long terms associate David Icke's use of the term? You see the hole that you've dug for yourself  - each time you deny the possibility that he uses the term because of his comrades repeated use of it you only drive home where it did in reality - not your justificatory possible fantasy world - come from. 

Are you going to answer my question btw? Do you think that none of Brand's stuff come's from conspiracy theory? If you don't, then just say it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Who are you talking to mate?
> 
> Hope your not 'paying any more attention to me'!


I think you need to read more closely.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think you need to read more closely.


True. I thought I had got lucky for a minute. Seems like I might have to be as obnoxious and rude as you are to get a proper 'ignore'.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> A couple of analysis's here worth reading
> 
> Russell Brand, revolution and pragmatis: http://libcom.org/blog/russel-brand-revolution-pragmatism-24102013?page=1
> 
> Brief remarks on Russell Brand: http://attemptsatliving.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/brief-remarks-on-russell-brand/


Odd how pragmatism ends up meaning being on your knees to a celebrity and the implicit argument for 'dumbing down'  - that the way politics works is someone tells the class something something in either hight falutin' or low-down langauge. Not the common working together on collectively identified needs, and the way politics is done coming out of that. Back to the great men of politics theme. We won these battles years ago surely? That whole libcom debate is point missing nonsense.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 26, 2013)

I don’t stand with Russell Brand, and neither should you
from Salon magazine/webzine
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/i_dont_stand_with_russell_brand_and_neither_should_you/singleton/

e2a - has the "Brandwagon" been mentioned on this thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Any god in a foxhole eh?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You brought that case up not me. Presumably because you recognised that it so closely chimes with Brands long terms associate David Icke's use of the term?


No it wasn't me who brought up the word 'paradigm'. You need to read the thread more carefully.

I haven't 'denied the possibility'. Maybe he did actually only see the term first in Icke, but I doubt it as he is actually well-read and will have undoubtedly seen it elsewhere long before Icke published his books. I am not saying he read Kuhn, the term is used *widely*.

Do I think that none of Brand's stuff come's from conspiracy theory?

I can't see what he has said that would qualify as conspiracy theory.

Now, are you going to answer my question about what Brand has actually said that would make him a 'conspiracy theorist'?

You love asking questions but you seem incapabale of answering any.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> No it wasn't me who brought up the word 'paradigm'. You need to read the thread more carefully.
> 
> I haven't 'denied the possibility'. Maybe he did actually only see the term first in Icke, but I doubt it as he is actually well-read and will have undoubtedly seen it elsewhere long before Icke published his books. I am no saying he read Kuhn, the term is used *widely*.
> 
> ...


Who brought it up? Why did they bring it up - did they bring it up because it has conspiracy connotations in certain contexts? I.e someone who a public supportive association with the worlds leading conspiracy loon using it in a vague waffly way.  I'll help you, yes is the answer.

You haven't denied the possibility, you've just argued at some length against it when people offer perfectly plausible examples of it. Fine.

I think you need to read the thread more carefully, what was suggested is that Brand is smuggling in conspiracy tropes under the rubric of political opposition. You went out of your way to respond to one such use ('paradigm') yourself earlier - completely missing of course, all context and pretending the word and concept is just hanging out there neutrally. That's the hole you've dug.


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2013)

Don't people find it incredible that a guy who usually lives 1000's of miles away, lives a life most people can't imagine, is incredibly rich, etc actually takes time to find out about such things as the benefit changes, etc in the U.K?

btw, I do agree with Weepiper, he shouldn't get a free pass due to his appalling sexist behaviour in the past.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

The past? What's the opening line of the manifesto?


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2013)

Eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Eh?


His manifesto that he headed up his new statesman edited edition with. 



> When I was asked to edit an issue of the New Statesman I said yes because it was a beautiful woman asking me. I chose the subject of revolution because the New Statesman is a political magazine and imagining the overthrow of the current political system is the only way I can be enthused about politics


----------



## ddraig (Oct 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Don't people find it incredible that a guy who usually lives 1000's of miles away, lives a life most people can't imagine, is incredibly rich, etc actually takes time to find out about such things as the benefit changes, etc in the U.K?
> 
> btw, I do agree with Weepiper, he shouldn't get a free pass due to his appalling sexist behaviour in the past.


no
ffs

e2a - you think it is pure altruism and he is blessing us with his time and with? nothing in it for him?

in what way is it incredible?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Don't people find it incredible that a guy who usually lives 1000's of miles away, lives a life most people can't imagine, is incredibly rich, etc actually takes time to find out about such things as the benefit changes, etc in the U.K?
> 
> btw, I do agree with Weepiper, he shouldn't get a free pass due to his appalling sexist behaviour in the past.


God love the tsar.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 26, 2013)

ddraig said:


> I don’t stand with Russell Brand, and neither should you
> from Salon magazine/webzine
> http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/i_dont_stand_with_russell_brand_and_neither_should_you/singleton/
> 
> e2a - has the "Brandwagon" been mentioned on this thread?



The first line of that Salon piece:
"I felt an immense affinity with comedian and would-be *revolutionary vanguardist* Russell Brand . . ."

 That's a bit lazy. Did she watch that interview?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> The first line of that Salon piece:
> "I felt an immense affinity with comedian and would-be *revolutionary vanguardist* Russell Brand . . ."
> 
> That's a bit lazy. Did she watch that interview?


Maybe she means vanguardist in the silently vanguardist way the SPGB silently are(n't).


----------



## ddraig (Oct 26, 2013)

yeah a lot of it is bollocks before making the point


----------



## weepiper (Oct 26, 2013)

Here he is basically sexually harassing a female presenter

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/russell-brand-morning-joe-mika-brzezinski_n_3455568.html

So it's ok for him to behave like this, we'll just write that all off, because he's quite funny sometimes and he said something we agree with about the state of politics. Eh, NAW


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Here he is basically sexually harassing a female presenter
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/russell-brand-morning-joe-mika-brzezinski_n_3455568.html
> 
> So it's ok for him to behave like this, we'll just write that all off, because he's quite funny sometimes and he said something we agree with about the state of politics. Eh, NAW


There's  a long long thread on here applauding this. I kid you not.

edit: Here it is.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's  a long long thread on here applauding this. I kid you not.



I can believe it, I've seen it posted elsewhere with 'haw haw he really puts her in her place doesn't he' comments


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2013)

killer b said:


> hey, you should come over to facebook, we've got radical feminists lining up to defend him over there!


Gawd 

Edit: there were a fair few supporting Assange too. Just wtf, really.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's  a long long thread on here applauding this. I kid you not.
> 
> edit: Here it is.


you wont find me defending it. welweit brought it up earlier and i agree, i think he has mental health issues, he's hyper manic (not a technical term i dont think), and comes across as barely in control of his life. thats proved by all his endless exploits, all well documented.

I know you dont watch much tv, but ive watched him a lot over the years: early stand up, big brothers little brother, a terrible own show he had after that, more stand up, being interviewed here and there, all kinds of bits and pieces - in about 50% of those cases me and ms invita would look at each other and wince, not because he said or did something outrageous, but because we both thought here's someone who needs therapy and is out of control. via freinds ive got some experience with what manic episodes are like but he's on a different level.

The fact this all goes down well in the media is a poisoned chalice, it allows him the space to manically galavant around and be rewarded for it. His drug addiction and rehab for sex addiction may seem like a bit of trivial media titilation from a distance, but my impression is that he is very unhinged and out of control. When i watched that clip you refer to - which some people seemed to find hilarious - my reaction was much like ive set out - shock at seeing him having a heavily manic episode and acting out of control.

Supposedly one of the things that helps you to keep mania somewhat under control is a regular sleep pattern, early mornings, exercise and crucially not too much stimulation. Flying around the world and doing hi-pressure TV is the exact opposite of that.

So yeah, im not qualified to say it, but my impression is its a mental health issue with him. Does that excuse his behaviour? Thats another question...at least to me it explains it.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

...and lets say that what ive posted above about his mental health is accurate - how should we  living in a media-mad age respond? What are the options?

I think I can relate to the life he's lived, and i think i can relate to his mental state, and based on that I genuinely feel sorry for him and hope he can get his shit together - to me it looks painful. I dont hold him up as a paragon of virtue, as a pure and prefect human who has all the answers and whose life is a model for us all to follow, I see a flawed guy from essex, depressed as a teen, whose growing mania has meant that the entertainment industry has enabled him to live an insane life, and the intensity of that experience is making him experience some truths about reality as he goes, insights from which he often throws around at will. He's not the messiah hes a very naughty boy, seems apt.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Oct 26, 2013)

ska invita hypo-mania is the term. Sub-threshold of full blown manic episodes so still in touch with reality but maybe making illogical choices ect.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

Superdupastupor said:


> ska invita hypo-mania is the term. Sub-threshold of full blown manic episodes so still in touch with reality but maybe making illogical choices ect.


cheers, i'll read up on wiki  about it - need to go and do some stuff now. Curious if other people agree with the above.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Oct 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> cheers, i'll read up on wiki  about it - need to go and do some stuff now. Curious if other people agree with the above.


 read the first para on the wiki then picture Brand ......dead on.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

1st para
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypomania
*Hypomania* (literally, "below mania") is a mood state characterized by persistent and pervasive elevated (euphoric) or irritable mood, as well as thoughts and behaviors that are consistent with such a mood state. It is most often associated with the bipolar spectrum. Many who are in a hypomanic state are extremely energetic, talkative, confident, and assertive. They may have a flight of ideas and feel creative. Many people also experience signature hypersexuality. While hypomania often generates productivity and creativity, it can become troublesome if the subject engages in risky behaviors. It is generally less severe than full-blown mania.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> 1st para
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypomania
> *Hypomania* (literally, "below mania") is a mood state characterized by persistent and pervasive elevated (euphoric) or irritable mood, as well as thoughts and behaviors that are consistent with such a mood state. It is most often associated with the bipolar spectrum. Many who are in a hypomanic state are extremely energetic, talkative, confident, and assertive. They may have a flight of ideas and feel creative. Many people also experience signature hypersexuality. While hypomania often generates productivity and creativity, it can become troublesome if the subject engages in risky behaviors. It is generally less severe than full-blown mania.



That seems a good description of Brand's persona.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


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



This isn't hugely important, but LP is listed as one of a number of Contributing Editors, which seems to have misled many into what her role at the New Statesman actually is. It's largely an honorific title, and has nothing to do with actually editing the magazine in any meaningful sense.

According to wiki:

A contributing editor is a newspaper or magazine job title that varies in responsibilities. Most often, a contributing editor is a freelancer who has proven ability and readership draw. The contributing editor regularly contributes articles to the publication but does not actually edit articles. At smaller magazines, the title may imply a staff member with regular writing responsibility and some editorial duties.​
Apart from questioning the bit about proven ability, I think that sums up her position pretty well.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Did you ever watch his interview with Michael Howard where he got the man of the night to repeat the same thing thirteen times?



Paxman's halcyon days.  He's been trading off that clip ever since!


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Here he is basically sexually harassing a female presenter


The vast majority of the 170 or so comments under that Huffington Post article seem to reackon the presenters managed to piss him off by trivialising his body and looks (his chest/hair etc), his clothing ('kinky boots'), making a joke about mental illness (his biography describes his bipolar diagnosis), getting his name wrong (calling him 'Willy Brandt'), mocking of his accent, repeatedly calling him 'he' when he was sat in front of them, asking him 'can we just get 30 seconds of it [his show] now' etc. and generally being rude/stupid/useless. Maybe what goes round comes round? True he's 'rude' in making a smutty remark but 'sexually harassing'? 

Whichever way we want to see it, Mika Brzezinski did end up apologising for not knowing who he was and how the interview went and said that Brand was a 'good sport' about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/mika-brzezinski-russell-brand_n_3478090.html


----------



## weepiper (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> The vast majority of the 170 or so comments under that Huffington Post article seem to reackon the presenters managed to piss him off by trivialising his body and looks (his chest/hair etc), his clothing ('kinky boots'), making a joke about mental illness (his biography describes his bipolar diagnosis), getting his name wrong (calling him 'Willy Brandt'), mocking of his accent, repeatedly calling him 'he' when he was sat in front of them, asking him 'can we just get 30 seconds of it [his show] now' etc. and generally being rude/stupid/useless. Maybe what goes round comes round? True he's 'rude' in making a smutty remark but 'sexually harassing'?
> 
> Whichever way we want to see it, Mika Brzezinski did end up apologising for not knowing who he was and how the interview went and said that Brand was a 'good sport' about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/mika-brzezinski-russell-brand_n_3478090.html



Yes sexually fucking harassing you total idiot. Next.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

What do the comments have to do with it? What's _your _response cd? What goes round comes round? Are you 12? That i_t's not even noticed is the point. _So saying you didn't notice it is...what?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)




----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's _your _response cd?


whats your response to someone registering high on the hypomania-bipolar spectrum and acting out the symptoms of that condition?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

What response can i give? What are you after? A prescription?


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> whats your response to someone registering high on the hypomania-bipolar spectrum and acting out the symptoms of that condition?


Even if they do/are, it doesn't make any difference to how I perceive his ideas. They're still his ideas. People with bipolar =/= sexist, for example.

Edit: This (not specifically you, generally some of the Brandwagon stuff) sounds like a variation of the SWP excuses for Delta ie focusing on the "good" of the party and sweeping under the carpet anything that inconveniently gets in the way.


----------



## panpete (Oct 26, 2013)

Just got onto this thread, and read first two pages, but I cant read further as I am not taking it in (no diagnosis of ADHD but I find it extremely difficult to keep my attention on one thing for more than a few minutes, so please excuse me for missing out the other 13 pages.

I've never really 'trusted' Russell Brand, seems like the sort of person who would not take kindly to not getting his own way, even though i have never met him.
I thought he was super quick in the interview and really agreed with all he said, but, I read this blog shortly after, and it also makes great sense.
Basically it's making out that Brand is a bit of a shill.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2013)

So the conspiracy theorists are divided about Brand  "shill" and a link to a ct site.


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

ska invita

re. the hypomania - he has stated in his biography that he has been diagnosed with bipolar (manic depression) and also in various interviews:

*In the past Brand was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and bipolar disorder. But the camped-up, live-wire performer an audience sees is not necessarily replicated in private, he says.* "Outside of performing I'm not a particularly confident person. I'm shy, awkward, nervous, gauche."
*Really?* "Yeah, really. My confidence is for what I know that I'm good at. I've been sculpted by failure and by time. You see me doing my job. You know, obviously I am different when I am chatting to my mum. Or playing with my cat. People are multi-faceted, aren't they?" (Interview 2006) 

*One of the doctors at the Residential Treatment Centre for Sexual Addiction thought he was bipolar (what used to be called manic depressive). Had that diagnosis ever come up before?*
"'Three times, at school, at drama school and then 'im. I'm aware of an oscillation but I've spent most of my adult life on drugs. It is hard to diagnose what it is, whether it is an inherent or inveterate chemical imbalance. I don't know. It wasn't self-inflicted as a child. I still felt volatile inside then. Anyway, the down times are a necessary correlation of the up times. With friends and people I know well there will be moments where I get uppity and show-offy, but most of the time, I'll be sitting watching and listening quietly. The performance isn't all there is – that would be unbearable.'" (Interview 2007)

*You were bulimic and into self-harm as teenager. Have you ever been diagnosed with any mental illnesses? *
"Yes, depression and manic depression and more latterly, bipolar. Attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity. It's difficult to know which of those diagnoses are correct because most of the time I was very young and on drugs." (Interview 2010)

However apparently he hasn't taken drugs or alcohol since 2003 (and hasn't been arrested since 2002) and there is a difference between having the 'ability'/personality to get hypomanic during performances (Robin Williams is often mentioned as being similar), and being permanently manic to the degree you lose contact with reality for days / weeks / months at a time and are completely out of control.

What kind of recent "exploits" are you thinking of (apart from his TV appearances) when you say he is out of control?


----------



## panpete (Oct 26, 2013)

cesare said:


> So the conspiracy theorists are divided about Brand  "shill" and a link to a ct site.


What's wrong with questioning things, and not just swallowing every thing on telly?


----------



## ddraig (Oct 26, 2013)

think you've missed the point there pp


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

cesare said:


> Even if they do/are, it doesn't make any difference to how I perceive his ideas. They're still his ideas. People with bipolar =/= sexist, for example.
> 
> Edit: This (not specifically you, generally some of the Brandwagon stuff) sounds like a variation of the SWP excuses for Delta ie focusing on the "good" of the party and sweeping under the carpet anything that inconveniently gets in the way.


 


butchersapron said:


> What response can i give? What are you after? A prescription?


i think this is the issue at the heart of criticisms against Brand, as opposed to critcising the content of this particular recent video, or the conspiracy stuff which i find pretty soft on evidence and just a fairly innocent/naive/well-meaning part of his freewheeling, often uncareful approach to sticking his finger in many pies.

...here's someone who is being encouraged by the entertainment and media industry to act in a way that goes against what a responsible psychiatric doctor would no doubt have proposed to him by now. Which is not to ignore Brands own responsibility to act in a way that isnt offensive and in his and others best interest.

The way it looks to me is that Russel Brands life is a circus on a rollercoaster, with some unsavoury moments thrown in for sure. The "hypsersexual" (to use the medical term) stuff can be particularly disturbing, and this clip referred to on this page isnt the only example of that thats been caught on camera - no one would be surprised by that i don't think. He's quite open about his sexual exploits and he is a proactive participant in these.

I don't have a scrap book of clips, but i have vague memories of switching the channel because I at least found it too embarrassing and uncomfortable how he was relating to women on the same show - not because im prudish about it, but because of...well, if you can see it in the morning tv clip then you can imagine it. Other posters here have found it out of order too, and i agree with them.

I guess overall I take a bit more nuanced view on this overall though - it's not as black and white situation as i think some posters here are making it. I have a lot of sympathy and empathy for people who suffer from mental health issues, and with him am prepared to give some slack to that. every person is different and you can only evaluate their actions by getting to know them closely. My overall feeling to Brand is that he's still messy and far from in full control of his condition.

I dont see Brand as equal to Delta for example (I dont think you were saying he was equal to him, and i got the general point you made cesare), though I think he can overstep the line regularly, and its absolutely right that he gets called up on it, and should also make personal effort to redress his actions. Problem is he gets a lot of positive reinforcement messages for that behaviour too, which must make it harder for him to curtail it. Its far from a good situation, but i dont go as far as to vilify him for his part in it. Its too complex for that - and I think that was what, was it Corax?, was getting at earlier...that its wrong to be too quick with the righteous judgment hammer. The history of dealing with mental health issues is one where black and white judgments have often been made with disastrous consequence.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> ska invita
> 
> re. the hypomania - he has stated in his biography that he has been diagnosed with bipolar (manic depression) and also in various interviews:
> 
> ...


 
/... bi-polar isnt really a thing in itself, more a spectrum of conditions, on which medical knowledge is still pretty hazy. There are lots of people diagnosed with bipolar who appear to act in very different ways. Lifestyle and drug use also have a huge impact as to how the condition manifests. To me its very apparent in him even when he appears in a relatively sedate state because ive had contact with it in my personal life and recognise tell-tale signs. Those little interview extracts give a window into his condition but dont reassure me everything is fine - no one who isnt close to him could really know for certain what goes on in his mind and heart, but from what ive seen over the years (including the newsnight interview) he's still being blown about by the condition to some extent.

Bipolar, its treatment, and how society should react to inappropriate behaviour that manifests is a huge topic.... i dont have the answer to it, but i know that its wrong to be blunt in response to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

How does all that effect my responses to him. Tell me.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How does all that effect my responses to him. Tell me.


i dont know, how does that affect your responses to him? Why are you asking me?
Anyhow it probably affects your response not at all if I know you well enough by now. Let me guess, you still think he is a drivel mongering multimillionaire conspiracy loon sexist new age quack who should shut up so people can get back to reading Hegel in the original German.
As usual your point of view is somewhat lost on me because of the noise of insults and other attacks.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> i dont know, how does that effect your responses to him? Why are you asking me?
> Anyhow it probably affects your response not at all if I know you well enough by now. Let me guess, you still think he is drivel mongering multimillionaire conspiracy loon sexist new age quack who should shut up so people can get back to reading Hegel in the original German.
> As usual your point of view is somewhat lost on me because of the noise of insults and other attacks.


You've given me a medical type view of brand and asked  me to respond. I did. It means nothing to me. I asked you why you thought it important that you ask me about this and i get the above nonsense (nonsense that reveals that you haven't read my contributions to the thread).

You haven't been insulted once. You haven't been attacked once. Why did you make that up?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You've given me a medical type view of brand and asked  me to respond. I did. It means nothing to me. I asked you why you thought it important that you ask me about this and i get the above nonsense (nonsense that reveals that you haven't read my contributions to the thread).


sorry butchers, if you want me to read your posts carefully and remember them try a change in presentation style. I know its fun for you, but its exhausting for most everyone else. Ive already said its great that urban posters analyse everything to the degree that they do - i love that, and appreciate it.

I missed your response to the medical view i proposed, though yep, it means nothing to you, i could've guessed that. I think it means something.

I remember your contribution that said he funded Ickes TV station - i dont think that was true
I remember your contribution bad mouthing other posters. Well done for those.
You posted a picture from the Prodigy album - that made me laugh
Ive engaged with other points about sexism here at length and very clearly. 
How am I doing?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> sorry butchers, if you want me to read your posts carefully and remember them try a change in presentation style. I know its fun for you, but its exhausting for most everyone else. Ive already said its great that urban posters analyse everything to the degree that they do - i love that, and appreciate it.
> 
> I missed your response to the medical view i proposed, though yep, it means nothing to you, i could've guessed that. I think it means something.
> 
> ...


Well 
a) i didn't
b) I didn't
c) those were the days
d) What's that got to do with me. I made serious long winded posts about this that you translate into attacking or insulting you. it did not happen.
e) not so good.

And one more, i don't care if you read my posts carefully. I don't care if anyone does. It would be nice if they do because some thought goes into them. If you don't then don't, but don't make up stuff about insults and attacks please.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> /... bi-polar isnt really a thing in itself, more a spectrum of conditions, on which medical knowledge is still pretty hazy. There are lots of people diagnosed with bipolar who appear to act in very different ways.


I am not sure I agree with that wholly. I have an interest in bipolar since contracting it as a late onset acute condition in 2004, I have spent months in hospital with bipolar people, spent time with psychiatrists and psychologists and key workers of various kinds, read very widely about it and still spend hours a week on bipolar forums where the main topic of discussion is the condition itself.

Yes there is variety in how people present with it but the theme is consistent, an inability to control mood swings which in the main are more significant than those of the general public. Some people go up (Hypomania and Mania), some go down (depression), some cycle over a period of years, some a period of months while others sometimes cycle multiple times every day (Rapid cycling). When down people with the condition can self harm or consider or commit suicide, when up they can get grandiose ideas, can have great personal confidence, can exhibit pressure of speech, can be very creative, are often sexually promiscuous and can be profligate with money, sometimes running up large debts.

Diagnosis is that this is an affective disorder, there are graduations of diagnosis, starting with cyclothymia (which Spike Milligan I believe had), then bipolar II (which I think Stephen Fry has and probably Russell Brand also) then perhaps the most serious bipolar I in which the up stage includes psychosis and loss of all control and usually requires immediate hospitalisation.

My feeling is that Brand's condition, if he has one, is that he is up, hypomanic perhaps, probably for long periods, months or years. Perhaps he does not go down, it does happen but I recognise in his mannerisms very similar things to that which I observe in bipolar people when they are up. And in myself also.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

i think there are posters on this thread who will have felt attacked or their opinions belittled butchers, and they responded saying as much, i dont think i made that up. anyhow, its been an interesting thread as per usual - sure beats the twitter sphere.



weltweit said:


> My feeling is that Brand's condition, if he has one, is that he is up, hypomanic perhaps, probably for long periods, months or years. Perhaps he does not go down, it does happen but I recognise in his mannerisms very similar things to that which I observe in bipolar people when they are up. And in myself also.


thanks for that, and hope things work out well for you.
agree about the hypomanic bit.
I think there is anecdotal evidence that people also get misdiagnosed to some extent as bipolar, as there are a variety of ways that it expresses itself which can make it a bit of a catch all category. I think there are debates as to what exactly bipolar means, or at least there were a few years ago. i think im right to say it isnt as solid medical a definition as say, malaria. Like you say, the cycles can be very different as can the symptoms.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe she means vanguardist in the silently vanguardist way the SPGB silently are(n't).



No, she probably didn't. 

SPGB "silently vanguardist"? I always preferred the 'paper vanguard' gibe.


----------



## Nice one (Oct 26, 2013)

all the thrusting young anarchist types are supporting russell brand's call for revolution, on facebook.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2013)

Nice one said:


> all the thrusting young anarchist types are supporting russell brand's call for revolution, on facebook.



I blame the decapitation videos. Should allow the breast-feeding ones to calm them all down again.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 26, 2013)

Nice one said:


> all the thrusting young anarchist types are supporting russell brand's call for revolution, on facebook.



on my facebook all the shuffling middle-aged anarchists are grumbling about it whilst the liberals are whining because russell is their god and he's not being supported by us.

i don'tt know any young people (anarchist or otherwise) so i can;t comment.

i think the issue is that the liberals feel betrayed.  they've found an orator they approve of and an oration they can follow but the radicals are naysaying and not giving them any cookies for being revolutionary.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 26, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> on my facebook all the shuffling middle-aged anarchists are grumbling about it whilst the liberals are whining because russell is their god and he's not being supported by us.
> 
> i don'tt know any young people (anarchist or otherwise) so i can;t comment.
> 
> i think the issue is that the liberals feel betrayed.  they've found an orator they approve of and an oration they can follow but the radicals are naysaying and not giving them any cookies for being revolutionary.



Exactly this.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2013)

i've hardly seen anyone who's not political or who isn't on here who's quoted his stuff 


el-ahrairah said:


> on my facebook all the shuffling middle-aged anarchists are grumbling about it whilst the liberals are whining because russell is their god and he's not being supported by us.
> 
> i don'tt know any young people (anarchist or otherwise) so i can;t comment.
> 
> i think the issue is that the liberals feel betrayed.  they've found an orator they approve of and an oration they can follow but the radicals are naysaying and not giving them any cookies for being revolutionary.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 26, 2013)

Brand is probably similar to Adam Ant in the way that his career and fame and being constantly busy keep the worst aspects of his mental condition at bay, but once the decline happens the negative aspects come back with a vengeance.

On Brand's radio show David Walliam's stated that his (Brand's) sex addiction was a mental illness, after seeing it up close.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2013)

D'wards said:


> Brand is probably similar to Adam Ant in the way that his career and fame and being constantly busy keep the worst aspects of his mental condition at bay, but once the decline happens the negative aspects come back with a vengeance.
> 
> On Brand's radio show David Walliam's stated that his (Brand's) sex addiction was a mental illness, after *seeing it up close*.



How close?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 26, 2013)

There you go. He's mates with Jonathan Ross and David Walliams. No matter what he says, in my book that makes him a fucking cunt and no-one to take seriously.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 26, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> How close?


Being part of his social circle I assume, but I wouldn't be surprised if he witnessed it going in from time to time. You know what these decadent celebs are like.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2013)

http://disillusionedmarxist.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/your-idol-has-feet-of-clay/

Let me know if there's anything I've missed or need to take out


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm tired of seeing his face on my Fb page 5 times a fucking day as if he's the first person in the world to proclaim it would be great if we could all just get along.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://disillusionedmarxist.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/your-idol-has-feet-of-clay/
> 
> Let me know if there's anything I've missed or need to take out



It wasn't Ross who fucked his granddaughter


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 26, 2013)

And the piece suggests Brand is Oxbridge, which I don't think he is


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

S☼I said:


> And the piece suggests Brand is Oxbridge, which I don't think he is


It doesn't.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 26, 2013)

It could be read that way.


----------



## xslavearcx (Oct 26, 2013)

so glad i dont have facebook at the moment by the sounds of things. already had a few friends IRL asking me if i have seen this blistering interview. hes not even funny...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

S☼I said:


> It could be read that way.


Don't think so.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Don't think so.



Aye, well I read it that way. It DOESN'T say that but it COULD be read that way. I'd suggest rather than a slash between bbc and public school it has an "or".


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2013)

I've edited it now.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2013)

D'wards said:


> On Brand's radio show David Walliam's stated that his (Brand's) sex addiction was a mental illness, after seeing it up close.


of that there is no doubt


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

let's like him then.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> let's like him then.



Well you can if you want 

He wasn't even on my radar before this, & tbh he's already off it.

Paxman & Brand - talking 'bout a revolution lol fuck me


----------



## D'wards (Oct 26, 2013)

His Re:Brand series he did about 10 or so years ago was excellent


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> let's like him then.


im not asking anyone to like him, but since the discussion became about him and who he really was i was trying to present a more nuanced view of him than the cartoonish drivel-mongering multimillionaire conspiracy loon sexist new age quack one i felt was being painted on this thread. i've got sympathy for him, from self-harming teen to manic adult.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 27, 2013)

Personally I think the significance of the Brand interview exists independent of Brand (no shit says the semiologists at the back), whatever confused ideas Brand quite eloquently articulated come secondary to the fact that there is someone on news night arguing that electoral politics are dead and revolution is not just the answer but quite inevitable.

I'd suggest Brand is to be treated as nothing more than a dipstick, in all senses of the term.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://disillusionedmarxist.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/your-idol-has-feet-of-clay/
> 
> Let me know if there's anything I've missed or need to take out



well put/well argued piece, hard to disagree with much of it ( though I'm personally pretty conflicted on it all.) 

"And are the working class really that stupid that they need a celebrity writing in the New Statesman, a magazine aimed at self-described “opinion formers”, to tell them to wake up, that the great men speak and they will follow?" 

To which the answer is obviously no , but with a 1000 atomised, disparate struggles taking place everywhere, everyday, from global stages to iindividual workplaces and communities, it's can undoubtedly  be a source of strength and re-invigoration to sometimes look up and see/hear someone talking the kind of fundamantal political truths on national tv that are very, very rarely seen/heard on that medium.  

Of course the likes of Brand are only going to get that kind of platform because of who / what they are, it's a given, but the effect that has on the impact of the message works both ways, undermining it to some, causing other to listen up , and some of us to just enjoy hearing what we already know broadcast on a newsnight.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Personally I think the significance of the Brand interview exists independent of Brand (no shit says the semiologists at the back), whatever confused ideas Brand quite eloquently articulated come secondary to the fact that there is someone on news night arguing that electoral politics are dead and revolution is not just the answer but quite inevitable.
> 
> I'd suggest Brand is to be treated as nothing more than a dipstick, in all senses of the term.


*googles semiologist*


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2013)

I repeat, pay attention to the small print:


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> *googles semiologist*


Here's one for you. 
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2013)

cantsin said:


> well put/well argued piece, hard to disagree with much of it ( though I'm personally pretty conflicted on it all.)
> 
> "And are the working class really that stupid that they need a celebrity writing in the New Statesman, a magazine aimed at self-described “opinion formers”, to tell them to wake up, that the great men speak and they will follow?"
> 
> ...



i agree with you, perhaps i should have made a point similar to what revol said above


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's one for you.
> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm


Thank you (I think  ). There was me thinking that an on-line dictionary would be sufficient


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> Thank you (I think  ). There was me thinking that an on-line dictionary would be sufficient


His book, Mythologies is worth a read and it's quite accessible (remarkable for a French theorist).


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I repeat, pay attention to the small print:


This reminds me of Occupy + CTers.


----------



## Hollis (Oct 27, 2013)

Where do semiologists hang out these days?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 27, 2013)

Hollis said:


> Where do semiologists hang out these days?



he's over there.


----------



## Hollis (Oct 27, 2013)

Ah right!  Wish I was one tbh.. sounds great, poncing around arguing the toss about slipped signifiers.. Money for old rope.


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2013)

Hollis said:


> Ah right!  Wish I was one tbh.. sounds great, poncing around arguing the toss about slipped signifiers.. Money for old rope.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 27, 2013)

rome's first servile war was led by a clown.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> rome's first servile war was led by a clown.


Beppis Grillus?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Beppis Grillus?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunus


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2013)

forgot about this one  

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/row-after-russell-brands-prank-983777


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2013)

talking of comedians who cross the line talking politics I thought Frankie Boyles interview with  mark the taxi driver was a good watch

+
Frankie Boyle on BBC bias & the lack of politically questioning comedians


----------



## classicdish (Oct 27, 2013)

Russell Brand in front of Keith Vaz's Home Affairs Committee on Drugs, being more restrained and serious (although there are a few 'moments') and being a lot more specific about policies etc.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 27, 2013)

He's full of shit about drugs and it says a lot about him.  His obsession with abstinence as the only solution, and the reasons he justifies it shows that he can only see the problem through the eyes of his experience, in this case as a young man on the brink of fame and with money in the bank already.  He mocks stability as a concept, saying ha as if people go out and take drugs/drink to get really stable - well perhaps not when they are young and partying but for older substance misusers that's exactly why they use, to make them feel better, normal, not sick.  He cant/wont see that because its not his experience, just like he cant see his misogyny because it just seems funny to him, its a dangerous trait for a rich man becoming involved in politics to be unable to empathise or accept that other peoples needs might be different to his.


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2013)

> Which is not to say that Brand is just a fool or that people who watch him in their millions are just enjoying a celebrity tantrum. Now, as in the 1920s and 1930s, many inhabitants of most European countries agree with Brand's slogans that all politicians are crooks and democracy is a sham. Today's crisis has left Europe in a pre-revolutionary situation. Or, if that is going too far, you can at least say that Europe looks ready for radical political change. Unfortunately for Brand, who sees himself a radical leftist of some sort, apparently, the greatest beneficiary of the nihilism he promotes is the radical right.Many people are surprised that the rightwing and neo-fascist movements have benefited most from a banking crash brought by the most overpaid people on the planet. I have to confess to being shocked as well. But I should not be, and nor should you. Classic fascism movements borrowed from the left, and today's neo- or post-fascist movements follow suit. Mussolini emphasised that fascism was a third way between capitalism and socialism.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/26/russell-brand-needs-more-than-wild-emotions


 

Nick Cohen seems to be saying a lot of things about RB and the growing populist revolution phenomenon as Froggie,


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2013)

I'm not so sure he is to be honest, like paxman he seems to be suggesting that mainstream electoral politics is the answer etc as in this bit 



> The democratic left is no better than the democratic right. Ed Miliband is as great a menace as David Cameron. Obama is the same as the Tea Party.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2013)




----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 27, 2013)

BBC radio 5 now


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 27, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> BBC radio 5 now



What's he saying?


----------



## xenon (Oct 27, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> What's he saying?



He's saying, it's very difficult to grasp. Very difficult to put into words but he doesn't want to go on and on...

Although that might have been Sebastian Vettel.


----------



## exiledinwales (Oct 27, 2013)

Russell Brand joins RED YOUTH to speak at October Revolution celebration, Southall 

(CPGB-ML)

Possibly a wind up but it's in the description box of one of their YouTube videos.


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2013)

I think this is just the sort of micro group he may endorse,


seriously


----------



## Geri (Oct 27, 2013)

I bet he hardly ever changes his trousers, like Jim Morrison. Imagine how sweaty they must be around the crotch area. Minging.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 27, 2013)

smokedout said:


> He's full of shit about drugs and it says a lot about him.  His obsession with abstinence as the only solution, and the reasons he justifies it shows that he can only see the problem through the eyes of his experience, in this case as a young man on the brink of fame and with money in the bank already.  He mocks stability as a concept, saying ha as if people go out and take drugs/drink to get really stable - well perhaps not when they are young and partying but for older substance misusers that's exactly why they use, to make them feel better, normal, not sick.  He cant/wont see that because its not his experience, just like he cant see his misogyny because it just seems funny to him, its a dangerous trait for a rich man becoming involved in politics to be unable to empathise or accept that other peoples needs might be different to his.



I remember him on some programme about drugs and there was this doctor on there who prescribed methadone and Brand was supposed to be interviewing her but he was just talking over her, not letting her get a word in at all and just going on about how abstinence was the only show in town and how he had achieved abstinence and how it worked for him etc. Thus neatly showcasing his solipsism, misogyny _and_ dogmatic approach to addiction all in one go.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 27, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> I remember him on some programme about drugs and there was this doctor on there who prescribed methadone and Brand was supposed to be interviewing her but he was just talking over her, not letting her get a word in at all and just going on about how abstinence was the only show in town and how he had achieved abstinence and how it worked for him etc. Thus neatly showcasing his solipsism, misogyny _and_ dogmatic approach to addiction all in one go.



She used to script me years back. A brilliant doctor. He was an obnoxious, bullying, shouty cunt to her - that bit of TV really made me angry tbh.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 27, 2013)

Get your fuckings chops around this.....

http://anarchamoose.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/glorification-of-celebrity-dicks-stop-it/



> It’s not my revolution if I can’t stab Russell Brand (and his ilk).
> It’s not my revolution if it isn’t mobilised by the most marginalised.
> It is not my revolution if I can’t dance on the dying embers of white supremacist cishetero-patriarchy.
> 
> NO GODS, NO MASTERS, NO CELEBRITIES.



So posing as an anarchist but advocating some sort of vanguardism by "the most marginalised"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2013)

They will lose this  blood bath.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 27, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> I remember him on some programme about drugs and there was this doctor on there who prescribed methadone and Brand was supposed to be interviewing her but he was just talking over her, not letting her get a word in at all and just going on about how abstinence was the only show in town and how he had achieved abstinence and how it worked for him etc. Thus neatly showcasing his solipsism, misogyny _and_ dogmatic approach to addiction all in one go.


i really dont know much about it, but my impression is that no-one is happy with the current methadone programme situation <isnt it pretty universally slated from all sides?

in the case of the committee hearing its fair enough that, having been invited on with the guy who runs the programme to give their opinion based on their collective experiences, they then give their opinions.

but another awkward interview where he dominates all i dont doubt


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2013)

How was he invited on?


----------



## Humberto (Oct 28, 2013)

He is full of mischief, it always comes back to bite him on his arse. He loves attention. But he spoke well, there was truth in there and he didn't get pilloried by Paxman.

He is a bit of an idiot evidentally. But I don't mind that. He is alright isn't he?

We can't just dismiss everyone because they are some kind of idiot when they have a gift for subverting the ridiculous nature of news interviews and use that platform to appeal to revolutionary destruction of the state.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 28, 2013)

Is the current tour sold out yet then?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How was he invited on?


i presumed thats how it goes....do you know different?
doesnt a commitee looking into something call on people for testimonies?


----------



## Batboy (Oct 28, 2013)

Hmm. Perhaps both of them Paxman and Brand would like to contribute a huge part of their considerable salaries and wealth to the poor? Paxman could have asked Brand ' Well how many millions have you made from this system Russel?' And then it could have then been rhetorical. They would have both been fucked, so that was not going to happen on a TV recording.

How often do we hear this? a celebrity barking on about the inequalities in life and the disparity between rich and poor, without recognising the sheer irony... Been here before with live aid and band aid or should I say Bob Aid and Bono Aid, both of whom amassed unbelievable fortunes after their careers PR rocketted and benefitted by speaking out at the inequalities of the poor and starving. Band Aid and Live Aid aid may have amassed around £150 million for the starving of Africa (mainly from Joe Bloggs contributing) but between Bono and Bob they have amassed at least £600 million personally. Do they need all that money? Bono invests and profits from corporate wealth such as Facebook, Brand himself is a multi multi millionaire and Paxman at one point was one of the BBC 'superstars' earning in excess of a £million per annum paid for by us the public.

Celebrities mouthing off at the 'system' and all the disparity, whilst benefitting hugely themselves from the 'system' make me choke. All bollocks really.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

Batboy said:


> Hmm. Perhaps both of them Paxman and Brand would like to contribute a huge part of their considerable salaries and wealth to the poor? Paxman could have asked Brand ' well how many millions have you made from this system Russel?' And the it could have then been rhetorical.
> 
> How often do we hear this? a celebrity barking on about the inequalities in life and the disparity between rich and poor, without recognising the sheer irony... Been here before with live aid and band aid or should I say bobaid and Bonoaid. Both of whom amassed unbelievable fortunes after their careers PR rocketted and benefitted by speaking out at the inequalities of the poor and starving. Band Aid and Live Aid aid may have amassed around £150 million for the starving of Africa (mainly from Joe Bloggs contributing) but between Bono and Bob they have amassed at least £600 million personally. Do they need all that money? Bono invests and profits from corporate wealth such as Facebook, Brand himself is a multi multi millionaire and Paxman at one point was one of the BBC 'superstars' earning in excess of a £million per annum paid for by us the public.
> 
> Celebrities mouthing off at the 'system' and all the disparity, whilst benefitting hugely themselves from the 'system' make me choke. All bollocks really.



Cretinous point


----------



## Batboy (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Cretinous point


Fuck off is it.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 28, 2013)

it really was.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 28, 2013)

revol68 said:


> it really was.


It really wasn't...


----------



## Yata (Oct 28, 2013)

D'wards said:


> His Re:Brand series he did about 10 or so years ago was excellent



some parts better than others, the nazi boy interview/piss take was good but getting a homeless guy off the street and shooting up with him? (didnt film that part obviously but was in his book) tbh that was pretty uncomfortable to watch and remember switching it off around the part where he decides he hasnt humiliated this guy enough and gets in the bath with him...

the stuff with icke is nuts, for anyone doubting his close friendship with icke hes been harping on about Icke for years infact first time i even knew who Icke was is from listening to Brand on Radio 2 and that must have been 2006-2007. 

tbh brand disappoints me, he was pretty funny on the radio and hes a smart, articulate entertainer but seems like the fames got to him and now he reckons hes the next che guevara or something. stick to the standup and the radio ffs


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 28, 2013)

It will be interesting to see him on the Joe Rogan podcast. You can bullshit a smart man for ten minutes, but you can't for two hours...


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 28, 2013)

I love him btw. Just think he's full of shit.


----------



## panpete (Oct 28, 2013)

ddraig said:


> think you've missed the point there pp


???
I don't think I am a big con theorist, but I do try to question stuff, as I got into a really bad habit of just reading and believing everything.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 28, 2013)

Batboy said:


> Celebrities mouthing off at the 'system' and all the disparity, whilst benefitting hugely themselves from the 'system' make me choke. All bollocks really.



I take that living in the UK you benefit so much from global inequality that you shouldn't talk about it either until you've moved to Mozambique and ceased to benefit from the system?


----------



## Corax (Oct 28, 2013)

chasbo zelena said:


> It will be interesting to see him on the Joe Rogan podcast. You can bullshit a smart man for ten minutes, but you can't for two hours...


The UFC guy???


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

W


bi0boy said:


> I take that living in the UK you benefit so much from global inequality that you shouldn't talk about it either until you've moved to Mozambique and ceased to benefit from the system?



You're not quite getting it are you?


----------



## rioted (Oct 29, 2013)

> We in the West are rightly weary of lofty pronouncements from celebrities. In societies shaped by advertising, sane people come to regard statements by the rich, with their carefully constructed images, with extreme skepticism. Promotions for products and political personalities turn out too often to be lies designed to steal money from unwitting consumer citizens, falsehoods that additionally rob their victims of precious time and a measure of their inborn ability to trust.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/truthdigger_of_the_week_russell_brand_20131026?ln

Worth a read.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 29, 2013)

He's annoyed Nick Cohen, who thinks he's basically a fascist, but I can't help think there must be better ways to annoy Nick Cohen. Maybe something involving ants and jam.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 29, 2013)

Someone slipped some dmt in Rogans roids and he's been quite interesting since.


----------



## Corax (Oct 29, 2013)

chasbo zelena said:


> Someone slipped some dmt in Rogans roids and he's been quite interesting since.


That's weird.  I got an alert that you'd replied to my post, and your post does indeed seem to be a reply to me - but you've not actually quoted it.  

Magic alert?  Has Urban become sentient?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> He's annoyed Nick Cohen, who thinks he's basically a fascist, but I can't help think there must be better ways to annoy Nick Cohen. Maybe something involving ants and jam.



I saw that, all good points but not sure what I thought about it to be honest. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say he's fash. I think he could have got it more onto more concrete facts (like his associations with david icke stretching back years, his sexism, etc) rather than just saying that he doesn't have a fully worked out political critique


----------



## Dillinger4 (Oct 29, 2013)

This article about Adbusters has a loose relevance to some of this



> Completely unmentioned was the real reason Grillo is so controversial in Italy: his blog is full of anti-vaccination and 9/11 conspiracy claims, pseudoscientific cancer cures and chemtrail-like theories about Italian incinerator-smoke. And, as Giovanni Tiso noted in July, Grillo’s “5-Star Movement” also has an incredibly creepy backer: Gianroberto Casaleggio, “an online marketing expert whose only known past political sympathies lay with the right-wing separatist Northern League.” Casaleggio has also written kooky manifestoes about re-organizing society through virtual reality technology, with mandatory Internet citizenship and an online world government.





> There’s good reason to be suspicious of anyone who pulls that “neither left nor right” line. Though Alex Jones’ _InfoWars_ may not have been directly based on early-days _Adbusters_, the two were undeniably similar in sentiment. Both take a hostile view to mass media and widely-available consumer products, pushing readers towards an ascetic alternative lifestyle that insulates them from “The System” and its toxic worldliness.
> 
> And, as luck would have it, both are also the merchants of the (rarer, more expensive) alternative products needed to live this lifestyle. Alex Jones expounds the virtues of food-hoarding and drives Truthers to amass his survival packs, anti-fluoride filters, and nascent iodine drops; _Adbusters_ flogs Blackspot shoes, Corporate America protest flags, and overpriced culture-jamming kits to “create new ambiences and psychic possibilities.”
> 
> With Lasn as its guru, culture jamming became popular among activists in the 1990s. Behind all those “subvertisements” lay one big assumption: regular sheeple were so brainwashed by consumerism that they couldn’t even snicker at rose-petally tampon ads without an enlightened jammer to spell everything out for them. Every adbuster got to feel like Morpheus, unplugging Sleepers from the Matrix with the Red Pill of Situationism.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 29, 2013)

That Jacobin article is very good. Brand could easily become a Grillo for the UK. The ground's already well prepared, UKIP benefit a little bit from this stuff already but they're more deeply rooted in traditional ultra-conservative british nationalism.

I never trust someone who's political outlook begins with the assumption that _everyone is stupid except me_. It's just narcissistic bullshit - people aren't stupid. Not at all.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> He's annoyed Nick Cohen, who thinks he's basically a fascist, but I can't help think there must be better ways to annoy Nick Cohen. Maybe something involving ants and jam.





> you should be as willing to take on Russell Brand as Nigel Farage, Marine le Pen or George Osborne.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I never trust someone who's political outlook begins with the assumption that _everyone is stupid except me_. It's just narcissistic bullshit - people aren't stupid. Not at all.



Me too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2013)

I have had rattling in my brain

grill griilow!
who got the keys to ma pillow?
annaya nye
The gyal dem love
Make love to a fella in a rush
Pass me de keys to mah truck



anyway....


----------



## Ultimate (Oct 29, 2013)

Ah, so this is the main Russell Brand interview thread. Only just found it - my own contribution was on the other one.

Don't know why you people take it all so seriously though. Brand is a comedian, not a political activist. He's never been a political person.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2013)

he has been politically active pre fame tbf, at least he went on a few marches and took of his clothes


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2013)

who's taking him seriously here?


----------



## Ultimate (Oct 29, 2013)

Yes, I remember reading about that. That was great, when he stripped off. Yes, he's had a bit of involvement in politics, but I don't think he's ever taken it seriously.


----------



## Ultimate (Oct 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> who's taking him seriously here?


 Everyone on this thread except me, it seems, unless your sense of humour is even drier than mine.


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2013)

the guy adapting beanie man lyrics to include italian politicians for example?


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2013)

Ultimate said:


> I don't think he's ever taken it seriously.


i reckon you're wrong here, mind.


----------



## Ultimate (Oct 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> the guy adapting beanie man lyrics to include italian politicians for example?


 Non comprendo.


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2013)

clearly.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 29, 2013)

I like the way he can be cheeky to Paxman's po-faced complacent persona and be uninhibited. I didn't like him at first but I like him more now for that.

He does behave like a buffoon. I think he is alright meself.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 30, 2013)

Corax said:


> That's weird.
> 
> Magic alert?  Has Urban become sentient?


 No. Just my piece of shit phone. Communicating like Hawking with a hangover.


----------



## Hulot (Oct 30, 2013)

> He does behave like a buffoon. I think he is alright meself.



This is, of course, exactly the way Boris reels them in. And I think Johnson's methods are quite sinister - why shouldn't I have the same reservations about Brand? If it purely a matter of the ends (if you agree with them, and I can't say that I do) justifying the means?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 30, 2013)

Remember that routine Brand did where he got his dad up on stage and started reminiscing about when he was a kid and he used to wonder why his dad's cock was so brown? That was a bit WTF. His dad took it in good humour but it'd would've been better if he said through gritted teeth "I've been doing your mother up the arse for for christ's sake, we couldn't risk having another one like you".


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 30, 2013)

Robert Webb disagrees with Brand. THIS IS POLITICS
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 30, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Robert Webb disagrees with Brand. THIS IS POLITICS
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand



Extraordinary, isn't it. 

Seen on Twitter: "Robert Webb is the Robert Webb of political punditry."


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 30, 2013)

The full thing.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there

They're not all the same/oh yes they are/oh no they're not etc


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2013)

urban had led me to belief Webb was a Tory


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 30, 2013)

Quite good I thought.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 30, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Robert Webb disagrees with Brand. THIS IS POLITICS
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand



Comment below:

"You have to feel sorry for Robert Webb.

In any drama-documentary about the Cameron years, he's doomed to play Grant Shapps."


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 30, 2013)

Oh, so that's why a bunch of people on twitter were saying "OH GOD SHUT UP RUSSELL BRAND ROBERT WEBB FUCK OFF ALL OF YOU".


----------



## Ultimate (Oct 30, 2013)

Right, I've read Brand's New Statesman article.

He's not saying anything that hasn't been said by lots of people before, but it's one more contribution to what more and more people are now saying: we need a change of direction.

And he addresses quite clearly the question that's been asked here: what right does a rich celebrity like him have to talk about corruption and poverty? The answer is he has as much right to talk about it as anyone else. He goes to Africa (can't remember which country, sorry) and is appalled at what he sees. Never mind that he's rich by British standards, by those standards all of us on this forum are rich, even if we do think we're treated as shit by the rich. But would we give up half of what we've got to help them? No, of course not, because we know it would be completely futile. So why should he?

He ends by saying we need a revolution, but I don't think he means revolution as in Russia 1917. He seems to mean it in a broader sense - a radical change in direction. At the moment, all we're getting is more of the same.

I think the main barrier is no one is sure what they want to replace the status quo with. Nor does he, and nor do I. In a way that's good, because it's arrogant to claim you have all the answers. But you have to know roughly where you want to go, or you don't know where to start.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Oct 31, 2013)

Ultimate said:


> But would we give up half of what we've got to help them? No, of course not, because we know it would be completely futile. So why should he?
> .



If a highly visible celebrity with a social conscience won't lead the way with wealth distribution, how on Earth do you expect politicians with an even higher reliance on corporations and business leaders to start implementing reform.

In this case talk is cheap, scrap that, it will probably make him even more money.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Ultimate said:


> And he addresses quite clearly the question that's been asked here: what right does a rich celebrity like him have to talk about corruption and poverty? The answer is he has as much right to talk about it as anyone else. He goes to Africa (can't remember which country, sorry) and is appalled at what he sees. Never mind that he's rich by British standards, by those standards all of us on this forum are rich, even if we do think we're treated as shit by the rich. But would we give up half of what we've got to help them? No, of course not, because we know it would be completely futile. So why should he?
> .



Has anyone here actually made that point? In any depth at least, and did it ever become a theme of the thread? Not as far as i can see


----------



## susie12 (Oct 31, 2013)

He talks about needing a "new direction", but how, in practice, does that work?  What do we do right now to go in a new direction?  It's plain that many people are pissed off but I cannot agree with him about not voting.  If more people had voted in 2010 we might not have ended up with the travesty of a government we now have.  I do think we take our freedoms very lightly in this country and that can be a dangerous road.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

susie12 said:


> He talks about needing a "new direction", but how, in practice, does that work?  What do we do right now to go in a new direction?  It's plain that many people are pissed off but I cannot agree with him about not voting.  If more people had voted in 2010 we might not have ended up with the travesty of a government we now have.  I do think we take our freedoms very lightly in this country and that can be a dangerous road.


What if more people had voted tory and lib-dem thereby putting the coalition on a firmer electoral footing? What if more people voted labour and they enacted - as promised  -  vicious austerity along the same lines as the current coalition? And his argument wasn't that people _shouldn't _vote, but that currently there is no point and that a lot of people recognise that - but if there was point to voting then he would. He's pro-voting but quite realistically.


----------



## susie12 (Oct 31, 2013)

Yes, agreed it could have gone a different way -but what else do we have, realistically right now?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

susie12 said:


> Yes, agreed it could have gone a different way -but what else do we have, realistically right now?


You're starting from the position that we have this, that we have voting right now. We don't. We have no options whatsoever voting, none. Outside of voting we have loads, large and small. From occupations of council offices, rent strikes, mass refusal to pay in supermarkets, blocking motorways, closing down key businesses and so on.


----------



## susie12 (Oct 31, 2013)

Yep I get what you're saying.


----------



## youngian (Oct 31, 2013)

Interesting reposte to Brand's don't vote schtick from Robert Webb who I've never seen as political person before:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand

This man would like to thank Russell Brand for not voting


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 31, 2013)

youngian said:


> Interesting reposte to Brand's don't vote schtick from Robert Webb who I've never seen as political person before:
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand



Nothing in that Webb article has led me to suspect he is a political person _now._


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2013)

Wel I for one definitely enjoy my politics to be enacted via celebrity spats in the pages of the staggers. This is true represntative democracy.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Webb's logic there is typical politicians buck-passing logic_: Turnout wasn't low because people think *we're shit*, it's *their *fault the country is in the mess it is.
_
Webb's last political intervention was to slag off Galloway and RESPECT - which led many, me included to think, given his Oxbridge background, that he was some sort of tory - seems he's actually some boring labour type.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 31, 2013)

youngian said:


> Interesting reposte to Brand's don't vote schtick from Robert Webb who I've never seen as political person before:
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand
> 
> This man would like to thank Russell Brand for not voting



vote labour to keep out the narsis? the fuck...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 31, 2013)

That Webb piece is a pile of dismissive and condescending shite, much like the tweets from the various comedians bigging it up yesterday.

It's like all the comedians are squaring off against each other, staking their claim to the best gig in town.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 31, 2013)

Stan Collymore has waded in now. 




			
				Stan Collymore said:
			
		

> Youth want rebellion without leaving the sofa for GTA/FIFA14. Try a march, a protest,starting a movement. Apathy = dictatorship.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

The _comedtariat _in full roar.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

What have the chuckle brothers said btw?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2013)

I cant wait to hear what Russ abbot has to say tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> I cant wait to hear what Russ abbot has to say tbh.


*Must resist party joke*


----------



## discokermit (Oct 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> I cant wait to hear what Russ abbot has to say tbh.


he's not bothered which party you vote for, as long as it has a happy atmosphere.

*couldn't resist*


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 31, 2013)

the deft words of stan the man kicking the matter into touch


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What have the chuckle brothers said btw?


perhaps the girder should approach barry for a riposte to brand et al?


----------



## youngian (Oct 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> Wel I for one definitely enjoy my politics to be enacted via celebrity spats in the pages of the staggers. This is true represntative democracy.



Sadly fame gets you to the front of the queue if you want media space to sound off. If they want to use it for a sober debate about the political process instead bollocks about badgers and contrived saccherine poppy day appeals (which is non political of course) thats fine by me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 31, 2013)

on a side note wrt mays euro elections. I am of the mind to vote anyone other than the far right because being a euro mp opens up funding for the bastards. But is this logical? Its PR rather than FPTP right? so denying them a vote share even if I vote for Elvis Party would work against it. If thats not the case I won't bother.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're starting from the position that we have this, that we have voting right now. We don't. We have no options whatsoever voting, none. Outside of voting we have loads, large and small. From occupations of council offices, rent strikes, mass refusal to pay in supermarkets, blocking motorways, closing down key businesses and so on.



Why should it be either/or though? Even if it's just to pick the least worst candidate voting is a means by which you can exert some kind of influence, however marginal, and to give it up foolish. Especially considering the efforts working-class people went to get that power, and how even to this day capital has to cast it's shadow over politics in a much more discrete and troublesome (for them) way. They have to make it so all the available political choices people can vote for are malleable to their interests, whereas they could've just used more straightfoward domination in the past. 2nd Dimension of Power rather than 1st 

I don't like Brand's recent comments because it reminds me of the attitude that a lot of Ickeans have - that it's all controlled by some vaguely Jewish-Illuminati-Globalist conspiracy, so there's nothing you can do and all political activity (beyond buying my books and waking up the sheeple) is futile. I don't like that attitude, I think it makes people withdraw into apathy and cynicism, and that ultimately that will benefit the status quo, who aren't that keen on poors voting anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Of course you can do all the things i mention and vote too. You can also do them and _put a bit of sellotape  on the fridge - _but neither of the latter things are going to help and one of them has the potential to do damage in that it plays exactly into the states role of legitimising the shadow that capital casts over society, of making it appear as being the result of democratic participatory choice. They want what you see as pressure through voting, it's functional for them in the political sphere same way that unions used to be in the economic sphere.

I think you and others have misread Brand's comments - his 'revolution in consciousness' (for this is all it is) has the intention of making voting worthwhile through other political activity.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They want what you see as pressure through voting, it's functional for them in the political sphere same way that unions used to be in the economic sphere.



Well I agree with that, after all it is in the interests of capital to allow some degree of popular democratic participation, not just to keep people happy but as a basis for limited political reforms to be built into the system. But at the same time I'd argue that there is already a major concession they've had to make to protect the system at large, one that we fought very hard for and shouldn't just be dismissed as utterly worthless. Which is the same view I have of trade union leaders, of course capital needs them to enforce labour discipline and act as a pressure valve, but that's a state of affairs they only reluctantly accepted after hundreds of years of struggle, and ideally what they'd like to be able to do without that layer of trade union leaders and be able to enforce labour discipline without their help. Which is actually what we're seeing now, the un-incorporation of the trade unions, trying to get back to how things used to be before they had to make some small accommodations. I think that's a bit part of what neo-liberalism is about, and that although you're clearly right on a lot of things your perspective on this is probably more suited to the pre-Thatcher/Reagan era. I don't think you can say that the union have that kind of leverage today, I mean look at the USA where only 6% of the private sector labour force is unionised, the conditions don't really call for union leaders to play that sort of role any more.

I'm not arguing for a parliamentary road to socialism what I'm saying is when you're fighting a battle you need to fight it on all fronts, including within the constitutional political system. Thanks to the Chartists and Suffragettes we've got an opportunity to make a fight on that front, and we should do so, but the danger comes when people think that political change can only be achieved _exclusively_ by parliamentary and constitutional means. Labourism, in other words. There has to be some kind of pressure internal to the established structures and externally too, working in concert as much as possible. 



butchersapron said:


> I think you and others have misread Brand's comments - his 'revolution in consciousness' (for this is all it is) has the intention of making voting worthwhile through other political activity.



I think you might be a little bit charitable to Brand here. His revolution in consciousness could quite easily just mean "buy more David Icke books" he's being so vague about it. We'll see in time, but I'm not sure I share your optimism.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think you might be a little bit charitable to Brand here. His revolution in consciousness could quite easily just mean "buy more David Icke books" he's being so vague about it. We'll see in time, but I'm not sure I share your optimism.



Will reply to the other bit in a while, but i'm really not being optimistic or charitable - it's millionaire hippy bollocks and have described it as such throughout the thread whilst going to great lengths to bring out his ickean associations. But he really didn't just say that _it's all shit no should vote no one should do anything_, he described the reality of this being the current situation as many see it, then argued that they should do something but that he doesn't see voting as the way _right now_ to do it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well I agree with that, after all it is in the interests of capital to allow some degree of popular democratic participation, not just to keep people happy but as a basis for limited political reforms to be built into the system. But at the same time I'd argue that there is already a major concession they've had to make to protect the system at large, one that we fought very hard for and shouldn't just be dismissed as utterly worthless. Which is the same view I have of trade union leaders, of course capital needs them to enforce labour discipline and act as a pressure valve, but that's a state of affairs they only reluctantly accepted after hundreds of years of struggle, and ideally what they'd like to be able to do without that layer of trade union leaders and be able to enforce labour discipline without their help. Which is actually what we're seeing now, the un-incorporation of the trade unions, trying to get back to how things used to be before they had to make some small accommodations. I think that's a bit part of what neo-liberalism is about, and that although you're clearly right on a lot of things your perspective on this is probably more suited to the pre-Thatcher/Reagan era. I don't think you can say that the union have that kind of leverage today, I mean look at the USA where only 6% of the private sector labour force is unionised, the conditions don't really call for union leaders to play that sort of role any more.
> 
> I'm not arguing for a parliamentary road to socialism what I'm saying is when you're fighting a battle you need to fight it on all fronts, including within the constitutional political system. Thanks to the Chartists and Suffragettes we've got an opportunity to make a fight on that front, and we should do so, but the danger comes when people think that political change can only be achieved _exclusively_ by parliamentary and constitutional means. Labourism, in other words. There has to be some kind of pressure internal to the established structures and externally too, working in concert as much as possible.



It's in their interests to allow the _image _of some degree of popular political participation, the reality of it terrifies them. They construct this image by enclosing the issues that they identify as being politically important to wider society through various ways and bending it to fit their own needs, then restricting the ways it can be expressed down to voting for one of the main parties views on the issues. That's them pressuring the electorate, not the other way round.

I think that you've misunderstood what i meant by my brief words about unions being functional for capital - i should have stuck with my original use of labour rather than unions. And frankly, if you think that electoral politics still allows pressure to be put on capital/the state then it may be you who are too close to a pre-79 perspective.

Have you been reading red pepper?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

youngian said:


> Interesting reposte to Brand's don't vote schtick from Robert Webb who I've never seen as political person before:
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand
> 
> This man would like to thank Russell Brand for not voting



Since when was the hollywood hills in the north-west of the UK anyway


----------



## youngian (Oct 31, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> on a side note wrt mays euro elections. I am of the mind to vote anyone other than the far right because being a euro mp opens up funding for the bastards. But is this logical? Its PR rather than FPTP right? so denying them a vote share even if I vote for Elvis Party would work against it. If thats not the case I won't bother.



They're in May 2014 and are falling on the same day as some local elections so there is likely to be a higher than usual turnout. This could work slightly against the far right but hard to tell. UKIP are expecting high gains but they benefited in 2009 from Labour's unpopularity. There is some thinking in the Labour Party that laying off UKIP so they get a good EP result will buoy them up for the GE to lower the Tory vote in marginals. But the possibility of these fucking lunatics being the largest British party in EP is a far more depressing prospect.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2013)

youngian said:


> But the possibility of these fucking lunatics being the largest British party in EP is a far more depressing prospect.


and an unrealistic one.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> one that we fought very hard for and shouldn't just be dismissed as utterly worthless.



Our domestication & subjugation.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> and an unrealistic one.


Largest vote share is possible, most seats, unlikely. I hope they do achieve both though. The tories would be in an absolute panic and it would have the potential to put them in serious existential trouble.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 31, 2013)

There are things I like about Brand, there are things I don't like about Brand. Regardless, he has a voice in the media and he's using it to say things that are outside of the received wisdom of traditional  media engagement that says "vote and accept your lot because you participated and that's democracy." Even if I don't agree with everything he says or does, at least he's saying something. Even when he faffs around and goes off on a riff about Derrida or something, he's throwing ideas (regardless of their merits) out there that are usually hidden or seen as separate from popular culture. I'd far rather these things be said by someone who's a bit of a prick in the media so that they start becoming "things we can talk about" rather than not spoken for fear that we might not agree with everything he says.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Noted homophobe Alec Baldwin was part of his issue it seems.


----------



## yield (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Noted homophobe Alec Baldwin was part of his issue it seems.





> That is quite a run and a reality that bears certain consequences. I am mistrustful of my government. I think it lies to us, reflexively and without a scintilla of compunction, on a regular basis. That mistrust began on 22 November 1963. In honour of the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, I stand for truth. I stand for more truth and transparency in government. The intelligence community believes that most Americans don’t want to know how the sausage is made. But I can handle it. I think most Americans, a pretty tough bunch, can handle it, too.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 31, 2013)

yield said:


>


I am all for openness and transparency, but no way do I want to know what really goes in my sausages. There are some things man was not meant to know.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 1, 2013)

good comeback, http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/31/russe...-webb-told-him-to-read-some-f-orwell-4168266/


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 1, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2013)

Martin is wrong, Brand did go to private school.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Martin is wrong, Brand did go to private school.



Aye, but not wholly as far as I know, his dad ran out of cash apparently and he went back to comp.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Aye, but not wholly as far as I know, his dad ran out of cash apparently and he went back to comp.


Just enough to make him self confident. Great piece from Wright.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 1, 2013)

Entitled, maybe. I know shit loads of self-confident people. But I know what you mean. Which piece from Wright?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course you can do all the things i mention and vote too. You can also do them and _put a bit of sellotape  on the fridge - _but neither of the latter things are going to help and one of them has the potential to do damage in that it plays exactly into the states role of legitimising the shadow that capital casts over society, of making it appear as being the result of democratic participatory choice.


 
 

*takes bit of sellotape off fridge*


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Entitled, maybe. I know shit loads of self-confident people. But I know what you mean. Which piece from Wright?


The vid mate:


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> *takes bit of sellotape off fridge*


It's  all gone to shit now


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 1, 2013)

Ah cheers


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's  all gone to shit now


 
I am the worst revolutionary _ever_.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 1, 2013)

the g20 thing, Brand says he was on a shopping binge on MTV cash, coked up, stumbled across the g20 action and joined in on a whim, getting his kit off on the way


----------



## treelover (Nov 1, 2013)

The web/social media is alive with discussion on how things need to change, yet I can imagine the day of action on the 5th will only be moderately attended, failure of organisers/imagination or failure of the public?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 1, 2013)

Day of Action? Forgot all about that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2013)

That martin wright vid: How sweet I roam'd from field to field



> He loves to sit and hear me sing,
> Then, laughing, sports and plays with me;
> Then stretches out my golden wing,
> And mocks my loss of liberty


The measure of brands wing is our loss. His span is our defeat.


----------



## andysays (Nov 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> The web/social media is alive with discussion on how things need to change, yet I can imagine the day of action on the 5th will only be moderately attended, failure of organisers/imagination or failure of the public?



Can you explain how or why a well attended day of action (whatever that means) would actually result in, or even contribute to, a significant level of change in any of those things? 

As far as I can see, it may give a few people a temporary internal glow at being a part of something, but other than that will be largely meaningless


----------



## savoloysam (Nov 1, 2013)

It's all a bit  in here.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 1, 2013)

Paxman was just on the Graham Norton show, mentioned his interview with Russell Brand and that he agreed with a lot Brand had said. Of all the anecdotes he could have mentioned, interesting that he chose Brand.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 1, 2013)

He was clearly under the influence but was fantastic. He emphatically agreed Brand was spot on about most people, their disconnection with politicians etc. Why can't Paxman show that kind of passion anymore?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Paxman was just on the Graham Norton show, mentioned his interview with Russell Brand and that he agreed with a lot Brand had said. Of all the anecdotes he could have mentioned, interesting that he chose Brand.


Not really


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 2, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> on a side note wrt mays euro elections. I am of the mind to vote anyone other than the far right because being a euro mp opens up funding for the bastards. But is this logical? Its PR rather than FPTP right? so denying them a vote share even if I vote for Elvis Party would work against it. If thats not the case I won't bother.


It's PR but PR done in a very daft way (at least if the same system is used as last time EDIT according to wikipedia it will be). So voting for a party that polls less than the BNP/UKIP/whoever would neither help or hinder the chances of the BNP/UKIP/whoever getting a seat.

D'Hondt method


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2013)

I'll just leave this here:


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2013)

oh my.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2013)




----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 3, 2013)

Some young scamp needs to draw a crude and artless depiction of a phallus growing from his head.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2013)

location?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> location?


Not sure. chico enrico posted it on his FB wall.
Somewhere in East London, no doubt


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2013)

Manchester? That's where the person does their stuff usually.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 3, 2013)

East London apprently

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/what...about-russell-brand-becoming-a-political-icon

Google image search to the rescue.


----------



## poului (Nov 5, 2013)

The love-in continues. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818743


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

Disgusting slave-owning freak. So he's not voted, he's voted tory, he's voted lib-dem and he's voted labour. It's cunts like him that drive non-voting.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2013)

'the British tradition of cheeky chappies'

*vomits*


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 5, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I'll just leave this here:



THE EYES.

THE EYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 5, 2013)

It doesn't even particularly look like Brand does it?


----------



## Favelado (Nov 5, 2013)

Fucking ludicrous.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

Why she make him have wonky eyes?


----------



## TruXta (Nov 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why she make him have wonky eyes?


Maybe he sees what we can not?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

Yes, i need to investigate the symbolism further.

Paxman _letting his hair down. _God, I fucking hate the BBC.


----------



## treelover (Nov 5, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I'll just leave this here:


 
Looks like a young Fagin...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

Joe Fagin? I think you're right:


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2013)

for some reason the pic of brand at the demo brought to mind mick jagger's attendance at the grosvenor square riot (it's the hair i guess) and i found this article about his & lennon's political interventions - loads of things that sound familiar - vague non-politics, open letters in radical magazines, radical socialists creaming themselves over the pronouncements of a multi-millionaire celeb... i especially liked this bit:



> While that may seem a ludicrous proposition today, in 1968 there was a feeling on the far left and in the media that the Stones, thanks in part to Jagger's appearance at Grosvenor Square and songs such as "Street Fighting Man" and "Sympathy", were at the vanguard of the struggle against an archaic political system


 totally ludicrous, yes...


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 5, 2013)

https://twitter.com/waleed_elhaddad/status/397790757803012096/photo/1


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 5, 2013)

Another piece by Russell Brand just this afternoon:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight


----------



## treelover (Nov 5, 2013)

> When I first got a few quid it was like an anaesthetic that made me forget what was important but now I've woken up. I can't deny that I've done a lot of daft things while I was under the capitalist fugue, some silly telly, soppy scandals, movies better left unmade. I've also become rich. I don't hate rich people; Che Guevara was a rich person. I don't hate anyone, I judge no one, that's not my job, I'm a comedian and my job is to say whatever I like to whoever I want if I'm prepared to take the consequences. Well I am.


 



Imo,. that is really good, he seems to be growing up.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

What by saying he is not under the discipline of a wider movement and can actually do what he wants when he wants because he's rich?


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2013)

Wearing a fucking V mask, ffs


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Wearing a fucking V mask, ffs




it is nov 5th tho


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> it is nov 5th tho


I don't care.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Wearing a fucking V mask, ffs



Mark of a cunt.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2013)

maybe next year anonymous will team up with movember and everyone can grow stupid V beard / tasche combos for cancer & revolution?


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Mark of a cunt.


Yep. Nothing quite signals Occupy/Icke/Assange/Anon as clearly.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 5, 2013)

Well Brand certainly seems to have affected Paxman.
Apparently Paxman wrote about him in the newspapers today.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...3.0.116.282.2j1.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.D7ykhy8wEJ4


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Well Brand certainly seems to have affected Paxman.
> Apparently Paxman wrote about him in the newspapers today.
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...3.0.116.282.2j1.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.D7ykhy8wEJ4


Apparently Russel brand was on his show or something that people have been talking about already that i couldn't be bothered to read.


----------



## RedDragon (Nov 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Wearing a fucking V mask, ffs


No doubt checking his social media coverage too.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Nov 5, 2013)

If Brand becomes the new Jesus, it should at least make a few Christians take pause for thought.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 5, 2013)

I think we should stick a pair of big ears and a tail on Brand and kick him up the arse, repeatedly, in public. That way we can be sure the next person who dares to point at the elephant in the corner of the room is someone of a better calibre. I'm very sympathetic to his general point, but like so many others on here I'm more interested in his personality. After all we have high standards to maintain and we  can't move on to bigger issues when we have a man with a dubious background and who wears a V mask to take the piss out of.  No, the 'revolution' has to wait for someone of better character to come along. Personally I'm waiting for Christ to make a reappearance, but he'll only gets my support if he ditches the whole 'God' thing.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Nov 5, 2013)

I'm just going to let Emily Pankhurst turn in her grave one more time before I answer this.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 5, 2013)

chasbo zelena said:


> I'm just going to let Emily Pankhurst turn in her grave one more time before I answer this.



Answer what?


----------



## chasbo zelena (Nov 5, 2013)

You're answering an answer with a question?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> I think we should stick a pair of big ears and a tail on Brand and kick him up the arse, repeatedly, in public. That way we can be sure the next person who dares to point at the elephant in the corner of the room is someone of a better calibre. I'm very sympathetic to his general point, but like so many others on here I'm more interested in his personality. After all we have high standards to maintain and we  can't move on to bigger issues when we have a man with a dubious background and who wears a V mask to take the piss out of.  No, the 'revolution' has to wait for someone of better character to come along. Personally I'm waiting for Christ to make a reappearance, but he'll only gets my support if he ditches the whole 'God' thing.


Yes, that way your next messiah will stand a better chance. Think about what you've just posted ffs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 5, 2013)

I posted more on the thread in Protest, but I was actually pretty encouraged by what was going on in Parliament Square this evening, despite the presence of assorted media wankers.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, that way your next messiah will stand a better chance. Think about what you've just posted ffs.



There's always a danger of posts being read the wrong way. I think that just happened.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 5, 2013)

chasbo zelena said:


> You're answering an answer with a question?



No. My post wasn't serious. Anyway, as you were


----------



## Corax (Nov 5, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> There's always a danger of posts being read the wrong way. I think that just happened.


Fireworks night has been replaced by Groundhog Day.


----------



## rioted (Nov 5, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> There's always a danger of posts being read the wrong way. I think that just happened.


No, BA is never wrong. Off to the gulags with you!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 6, 2013)

I see Brand gets a whole page to himself in the Guardian today. The celebrity Che Guevara.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 6, 2013)

rioted said:


> No, BA is never wrong. Off to the gulags with you!



 Can i be in the celebrity cell? Like Big Brother, but crushing rocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> There's always a danger of posts being read the wrong way. I think that just happened.


Ok, can you put your point in another way please? Because that post to me looked like a mish-mash of having a finger wag at both brand _and _people who criticised him mixed with a suggestion that the latter are so picky they will only accept a new christ as valid.


----------



## killer b (Nov 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> a suggestion that the latter are so picky they will only accept a new christ as valid.


he can fuck off an' all.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2013)

You'd have thought he'd have learnt his lesson from last time around.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, can you put your point in another way please? Because that post to me looked like a mish-mash of having a finger wag at both brand _and _people who criticised him mixed with a suggestion that the latter are so picky they will only accept a new christ as valid.



Oh right, you sounded like you'd completely missed the point first time round. I should have known you hadn't. 

I know this is a Russell Brand thread in the TV section, so it's only natural it should be about him - but broadening it out a bit i wasn't finger wagging at Brand so much as he’s irrelevant in that what he said was the important bit, not what he’s like as a bloke. Everything else involving the attachment of his personality to those comments (and future ones) are eventually doomed to fail in some combination of tangled MSM smears with those who broadly agreeing with him feeling that at some point that ‘he’s let the side down by doing x,y,z.’ So my point was we shouldn't obsess about who says these things and defend them because ultimately we're all flawed individuals. He's shone a bit of light where it doesn't always get exposed and that's all we should be thankful for in my view.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Oh right, you sounded like you'd completely missed the point first time round. I should have known you hadn't.
> 
> I know this is a Russell Brand thread in the TV section, so it's only natural it should be about him - but broadening it out a bit i wasn't finger wagging at Brand so much as he’s irrelevant in that what he said was the important bit, not what he’s like as a bloke. Everything else involving the attachment of his personality to those comments (and future ones) are eventually doomed to fail in some combination of tangled MSM smears with those who broadly agreeing with him feeling that at some point that ‘he’s let the side down by doing x,y,z.’ So my point was we shouldn't obsess about who says these things and defend them because ultimately we're all flawed individuals. He's shone a bit of light where it doesn't always get exposed and that's all we should be thankful for in my view.


I agree. I can already sense people falling into making all this stuff about him rather than the issues - i've probably done it myself on this thread as well. I think some people may well end up in _How shall we fuck off, O Lord?_ situation if they're not a bit more careful.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I agree. I can already sense people falling into making all this stuff about him rather than the issues - i've probably done it myself on this thread as well. I think some people may well end up in _How shall we fuck off, O Lord?_ situation if they're not a bit more careful.



Im not sure if im relieved or pleased you agreed with me


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You'd have thought he'd have learnt his lesson from last time around.



a suitable post #666


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Im not sure if im relieved or pleased you agreed with me


Leaves rioted looking like a bit of a tit either way


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2013)

Have a read of this error strewn nonsense:

A response to Russell Brand: Five ways that voting does make a difference

A 393 seat majority you say? 

(Bloodworth has been caught plagiarising as well hasn't he?)


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 6, 2013)

Mussolini and North Korea, Brand threw Che Guevara in today. It's not a debate, it's a shit game of top trumps. I like tractors best.

and if he plagiarised that he wants hobbling


----------



## Ultimate (Nov 6, 2013)

The way the media are going on, you'd think Brand was the first person to say, "All politics is crap." It seems they've only just woken up to the fact that most of us aren't too keen on politicians. And they're putting too much emphasis on Brand himself, rather the issue, but that's not surprising. It's just the sad obsession with celebrities.

As I said earlier, he didn't say much that hasn't been said lots of times before, but it was a good performance, said well. It's good that it's got people talking about the issue - that a lot of people don't vote because they find the whole political system so alienating - but let's get real and stop setting up Russell Brand as the new messiah.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have a read of this error strewn nonsense:
> 
> A response to Russell Brand: Five ways that voting does make a difference
> 
> ...


If i was plagiarizing stuff I would at least try to find something better than shit like that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> If i was plagiarizing stuff I would at least try to find something better than shit like that.


That wasn't plagiarised. Bloodworth was outed for his _use _of other peoples work on here a number of times over the last few years.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 7, 2013)

where were you when Russell Brand discovered fire?
did you join with the crowds in Trafalgar Square and watch on the giant screen?


----------



## rioted (Nov 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> i've probably done it myself on this thread as well.


Thankyou.


----------



## treelover (Nov 15, 2013)

> Russell Brand calls David Cameron a 'filthy, dirty, posh w***er'
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-cameron-a-filthy-dirty-posh-wer-8939040.html


 
Er, joined the gutter with the rest of us...


----------



## chasbo zelena (Nov 15, 2013)

Bring back Solomon and benign dictatorship.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Nov 15, 2013)

He's lucky he lives in a world where he can get away with that.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Nov 15, 2013)

Kind of snookers himself though.


----------



## chasbo zelena (Nov 15, 2013)

We'll see.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 21, 2013)

New Russell Brand interview here


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 21, 2013)

one hour and 7 minutes and 54 seconds, G-d spare us


----------



## Corax (Dec 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> one hour and 7 minutes and 54 seconds, G-d spare us


At least Alex Jones isn't in this one.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 21, 2013)

Corax said:


> At least Alex Jones isn't in this one.


You actually watched it!


----------



## Corax (Dec 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You actually watched it!


Well he's not in the first five minutes anyway.  

Tbh the bit I watched was quite... watchable.  That's what he's paid for I guess.  I doubt the full hour+ contains anything of huge import and I'm not hugely compelled to find out, but if it swings impressionable minds away from free-market democratic ideology then I don't see the harm - as long as he stays away from the whole lizardjew thing and similarly perverted theories...


----------

