Who Disagrees With Russell Brand?

[Rob McCow]

Another article from Mr Brand, this time in the Guardian.

Ignoring his stupid hair, the fact that he's a comedian, his silly voice, his grating tone, his tendency to ramble and go off-topic, that he used to be a junkie, that he's wealthy, that he's disrespectful to women, that he's got shifty eyes, that he has facial hair that makes him look he hasn't had a bath in a week and that he's a twit... does anyone disagree with the points he's making here about the democratic system in the UK?

I've had an incredible week since I spoke from the heart, some would say via my arse, on Paxman. I've had slaps on the back, fist bumps, cheers and hugs while out and about, cock-eyed offers of political power from well intentioned chancers and some good ol' fashioned character assassinations in the papers.

The people who liked the interview said it was because I'd articulated what they were thinking. I recognise this. God knows I'd love to think the attention was about me but I said nothing new or original, it was the expression of the knowledge that democracy is irrelevant that resonated. As long as the priorities of those in government remain the interests of big business, rather than the people they were elected to serve, the impact of voting is negligible and it is our responsibility to be more active if we want real change.

Turns out that among the disenchanted is Paxman himself who spends most of his time at the meek heart of the political establishment and can't summons up the self-delusion to drag his nib across the ballot box. He, more than any of us is aware that politicians are frauds. I've not spent too much time around them, only on the telly, it's not pleasant; once you've been on Question Time and seen Boris simpering under a make-up brush it's difficult to be enthusiastic about politics.

The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change. I don't think it does. I fervently believe that we deserve more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty, when they hop a few inches left or right. The lazily duplicitous servants of The City expect us to gratefully participate in what amounts to little more than a political hokey cokey where every four years we get to choose what colour tie the liar who leads us wears.

I remember the election and Cameron didn't even get properly voted in, he became prime minister by default when he teamed up with Clegg. Clegg who immediately reneged (Renegy-Cleggy?) on his flagship pledge to end tuition fees at the first whiff of power.

When students, perhaps students who had voted for him, rioted they were condemned. People riot when dialogue fails, when they feel unrepresented and bored by the illusion, bilious with the piped in toxic belch wafted into their homes by the media.

The reason these coalitions are so easily achieved is that the distinctions between the parties are insignificant. My friend went to a posh "do" in the country where David Cameron, a man whose face resembles a little painted egg, was in attendance. Also present were members of the opposition and former prime minister Tony Blair. Whatever party they claim to represent in the day, at night they show their true colours and all go to the same party.

Obviously there has been some criticism of my outburst, I've not been universally applauded as a cross between Jack Sparrow and Spartacus (which is what I'm going for) but they've been oddly personal and I think irrelevant to the argument. I try not to read about myself as the mean stuff is hurtful and the good stuff hard to believe, but my mates always give me the gist of what's going on, the bastards. Some people say I'm a hypocrite because I've got money now. When I was poor and I complained about inequality people said I was bitter, now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda because it is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

It's easy to attack me, I'm a right twerp, I'm a junkie and a cheeky monkey, I accept it, but that doesn't detract from the incontrovertible fact that we are living in a time of huge economic disparity and confronting ecological disaster. This disparity has always been, in cultures since expired, a warning sign of end of days. In Rome, Egypt and Easter Island the incubated ruling elites, who had forgotten that we are one interconnected people, destroyed their societies by not sharing. That is what's happening now, regardless of what you think of my hair or me using long words, the facts are the facts and the problem is the problem. Don't be distracted. I think these columnist fellas who give me aggro for not devising a solution or for using long words are just being territorial. When they say "long words" they mean "their words" like I'm a monkey who got in their Mum's dressing up box or a hooligan in policeman's helmet.

As I said to Paxman at the time "I can't conjure up a global Utopia right now in this hotel room". Obviously that's not my job and it doesn't need to be, we have brilliant thinkers and organisations and no one needs to cook up an egalitarian Shangri-La on their todd; we can all do it together.

I like Jeremy Paxman, incidentally. I think he's a decent bloke but like a lot of people who work deep within the system it's hard for him to countenance ideas from outside the narrowly prescribed trench of contemporary democracy. Most of the people who criticized me have a vested interest in the maintenance of the system. They say the system works. What they mean is "the system works for me".

The less privileged among us are already living in the apocalypse, the thousands of street sleepers in our country, the refugees and the exploited underclass across our planet daily confront what we would regard as the end of the world. No money, no home, no friends, no support, no hand of friendship reaching out, just acculturated and inculcated condemnation.

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.

My favourite experiences since Paxman-nacht are both examples of the dialogue it sparked. Firstly my friend's 15-year-old son wrote an essay for his politics class after he read my New Statesman piece. He didn't agree with everything I said, he prefers the idea of spoiling ballots to not voting "to show we do care" maybe he's right, I don't know. The reason not voting could be effective is that if we starve them of our consent we could force them to acknowledge that they operate on behalf of The City and Wall Street; that the financing of political parties and lobbying is where the true influence lies; not in the ballot box. However, this 15-year-old is quite smart and it's quite possible that my opinions are a result of decades of drug abuse.

I'm on tour so I've been with thousands of people every night (not like in the old days, I'm a changed man) this is why I'm aware of how much impact the Newsnight interview had. Not everyone I chat to agrees with me but their beliefs are a lot closer to mine than the broadsheets, and it's their job to be serious. One thing I've learned and was surprised by is that I may suffer from the ol' sexism. I can only assume I have an unaddressed cultural hangover, like my adorable Nan who had a heart that shone like a pearl but was, let's face it, a bit racist. I don't want to be a sexist so I'm trying my best to check meself before I wreck meself. The problem may resolve itself as I'm in a loving relationship with a benevolent dictator and have entirely relinquished personal autonomy.

Whilst travelling between gigs I had my second notable encounter. One night late at the Watford Gap I got chatting to a couple of squaddies, one Para, one Marine, we talked a bit about family and politics, I invited them to a show. Then we were joined by three Muslim women, all hijabbed up. For a few perfect minutes in the strip lit inertia of this place, that was nowhere in particular but uniquely Britain, I felt how plausible and beautiful The Revolution could be. We just chatted.

Between three sets of different people; first generation Muslims, servicemen and the privileged elite that they serve (that would be me) effortless cooperation occurred. Here we were free from the divisive rule that tears us apart. That sends brave men and women to foreign lands to fight their capitalist wars, that intimidates and unsettles people whose faith and culture superficially distinguishes them, that tells the comfortable "hush now" you have your trinkets. It seemed ridiculous that refracted through the power prism that blinds us; the soldiers could be invading the homeland of these women's forefathers in order to augment my luxurious stupour. Here in the gap we were together. Our differences irrelevant. With no one to impose separation we are united.

I realised then that our treasured concepts of tribe and nation are not valued by those who govern except when it is to divide us from each other. They don't believe in Britain or America they believe in the dollar and the pound. These are deep and entrenchedsystemic wrongs that are unaddressed by party politics.

The symptoms of these wrongs are obvious, global and painful. Drone strikes on the innocent, a festering investment for future conflict.

How many combatants are created each time an innocent person in a faraway land is silently ironed out from an Arizona call centre? The reality is we have more in common with the people we're bombing than the people we're bombing them for.

NSA spying, how far-reaching is the issue of surveillance? Do you think we don't have our own cute, quaint British version? Does it matter if the dominant paradigm of Western Capitalism is indifferent to our Bud Flanagan belief in nation? Can we really believe these problems can be altered within the system that created them? That depends on them? The system that we are invited to vote for? Of course not, that's why I won't vote. That's why I support the growing revolution.

We can all contribute ideas as to how to change our world; schoolboys, squaddies, hippies, Muslims, Jews and if what I'm describing is naive then you can keep your education and your indoctrination because loving our planet and each other is a duty, a beautiful obligation. While chatting to people this week I heard some interesting ideas, here are a couple.

We could use the money accumulated by those who have too much, not normal people with a couple of cars, giant corporations, to fund a fairer society.

The US government gave a trillion dollars to bail out the big five banks over the past year. Banks that have grown by 30% since the crisis and are experiencing record profits and giving their execs record bonuses. How about, hang on to your hats because here comes a naïve suggestion, don't give them that money, use it to create one million jobs at fifty grand a year for people who teach, nurse or protect.

These bailouts for elites over services for the many are institutionalised within the system, no party proposes changing it. American people that voted, voted for it. I'm not voting for that.

That's one suggestion for the Americans; we started their country so we owe them a favour now things are getting heavy.

Here's one for blighty; Philip Green, the bloke who owns Top Shop didn't pay any income tax on a £1.2bn dividend in 2005. None. Unless he paid himself a salary that year, in addition to the £1.2bn dividend, the largest in corporate history, then the people who clean Top Shop paid more income tax than he did. That's for two reasons – firstly because he said that all of his £1.2bn earnings belong to his missus, who was registered in Monaco and secondly because he's an arsehole. The money he's nicked through legal loopholes would pay the annual salary for 20,000 NHS nurses. It's not illegal; it's systemic, British people who voted, voted for it. I'm not voting for that.

Why don't you try not paying taxes and see how quickly a lump of bird gets thrown in your face. It's socialism for corporate elites and feudalism for the rest of us. Those suggestions did not come from me; no the mind that gave the planet Booky Wook and Ponderland didn't just add an economically viable wealth distribution system to the laudable list of accolades, to place next to my Shagger Of The Year awards.

The first came from Dave DeGraw, the second Johann Hari got from UK Uncut. Luckily with organisations like them, Occupy, Anonymous and The People's Assembly I don't need to come with ideas, we can all participate. I'm happy to be a part of the conversation, if more young people are talking about fracking instead of twerking we're heading in the right direction. The people that govern us don't want an active population who are politically engaged, they want passive consumers distracted by the spectacle of which I accept I am a part.

If we all collude and collaborate together we can design a new system that makes the current one obsolete. The reality is there are alternatives. That is the terrifying truth that the media, government and big business work so hard to conceal. Even the outlet that printed this will tomorrow print a couple of columns saying what a naïve wanker I am, or try to find ways that I've ****ed up. Well I am naïve and I have ****ed up but I tell you something else. I believe in change. I don't mind getting my hands dirty because my hands are dirty already. I don't mind giving my life to this because I'm only alive because of the compassion and love of others. Men and women strong enough to defy this system and live according to higher laws. This is a journey we can all go on together, all of us. We can include everyone and fear no one. A system that serves the planet and the people. I'd vote for that.

[Nyder]

I'm sensing a bit of anti-Branding there Steve! My Dad thought he was the bees-knees until he started reading his autobiog. "It was all about drugs & masturbation so I stopped reading" said Dad. Naturally that was the point where I picked up the book immediately.

I understand RB's frustrations about voting - but in my opinion you should still vote - even if only to write "none of the above". Can you just imagine if the "party" with the biggest majority was the "spoilt ballot" party!

[Perry Vale]

I agree with every word he says. So do a continually growing number of people.

Fox News don't though....

[Rob McCow]

I'm more inclined to agree with RB simply because the guys on Fox News are such utter, utter ar%%holes that they make RB look like Gandhi.

[Stuart Wallis]

Based purely on ideology, ideally, the next prime minister should be Russell Brand (Least Worst Party).

There's two things that could change things: 1) an end to a form of political apartheid that exists - the men in suits who cling on to power partly because most everyone who gets into power gets told "you can't change the world because you don't have the resources and the full support of those who've always done things this way"; and 2) who has the method and the effort that will change things? To quote Churchill, democracy is the worst system we have except for everything else; and without wishing to strip that right away from the general populace, there's so many potential vpices crying out, who's going to hear the bestest ideas in the noise? and will anyone act on them?

[Perry Vale]

Whatever party they claim to represent in the day, at night they show their true colours and all go to the same party.

This is perhaps the biggest problem facing our "democracy". It's especially true in the US right now. Obama has carried on all of Bush's policies, but with more fervour. One of Dubya's previous press secrataries recently tweeted that we are currently in Bush's fourth term. If you had any doubt, you just need to look at his eagerness recently to go to war with Syria based on nothing but some very dubious circumstantial evidence at best, at worst a false flag event. Cameron and Hague were itching to get involved too.

We are currently slaves to a (current) war machine built on the lie of 9/11. Trillions of dollars spent fighting false and fabricated wars, to further financial investments of the rich. Whilst the 99% of the population have to suffer "austerity". The mainstream media will mock and decry socialism (at the request of their masters), yet austerity is simply socialism in reverse - the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. The 2008 financial collapse had the result of making the richest people in the world 5% richer.

So because of this, nothing will ever be changed by voting in "the other party". Our governments aren't running things any more, and haven't for a very long time. The top three financers to Obama are all weapons manufacturers. PM or President is no longer "the top job". Bill Clinton, for example, has made an estimated $105 MILLION since leaving office, just from making speeches. And Hilary, tipped by some as the first female, and lesbian President in 2016, currently earns $200,000 per speech. Obama is therefore a stooge, basically an insurance salesman chosen to come in and sell Obamacare to the country - another policy of wealth transfer from bottom to top.

So if anyone does want genuine change, it's only going to come from something completely different, and new. That, I think, is what Russell is trying to get over. You can laugh at him, and mock him for not having the concise answer to deliver, but it is missing the point, IMO. I'd laugh at those who think 'this' is the best system we can have, or is one that we deserve as a people.

We, the people, really do have the power. Those in control know this, but don't have to worry about it unless the word spreads further and deeper. Currently they keep it under control with the media who use brainwashing techniques. I'm a crazy tin-foil hat wearing freak, you're thinking? I don't think so, but remember this - to keep themselves in power, they only have to fool 35-40% of the people that actually vote. And so many people don't care enough, or have stopped caring. Look how many responses this thread has had?

You don't think we have the power? I'll give you an example. We are outraged at the energy companies hiking up their charges to unfair heights. We tell them it's not on. Together, 5, 10 million 'customers' stop using gas for one day, as an example. Hit their profits. Tell them we won't stand for it. It might bring some hardship, and a day sitting in the cold at home, but nevertheless we do hold the power.

[Wayne]

Call me cynical, but I think having a venal hypocrite of the calibre of Russell Brand speaking up for the left, can only enhance David Cameron's chances of becoming Prime Minister again for a second term.
His sole contribution to the world to date has been to enrich himself to the tune of £15 million while doing pretty much all he can to lower cultural stands a little further.
The man who moved to Hollywood for the mega-bucks says that 'profit is a dirty word', was seen at an austerity protest the the same week as he brought £2.2 million mansion. I find it utterly dismal that our culture has become so idiotic that someone like Brand is being portrayed as some kind of political hero. I can't believe how many people have been taken by this self-serving, publicity whoring wanker. Still.... He'd make a great politician.

[Stuart Wallis]

A field in which he would still be the wisest fool in Christendom...

[Jon Masters]

The idea that any of the current woodentops, or their predecessors, could be involved in some massive conspiracy run by big business is laughable. They can’t even keep their lunch orders secret. Moreover, any conspiracy theory is an easy excuse for those who claim they can’t change the system – shadowy forces are easier t blame.
The problem with the UK isn’t a new one – our first past the post and party affiliation system means that unless you live in a key marginal, your vote has no effect. Combine that with a complete lack of any opposition which is recognisably different from the party in power and voting becomes a waste of time.
And it’s the Great British Public who is to blame. They defeated the one recent chance to change the system (PR) – ironically because it was supposed to lead to more coalition politics. And the race by first Labour, and then Lib Dems, to attract the votes of the ‘look out for themselves and vote for anyone who’ll give the money’ large (generally Middle Class) portion resulted in them completely abandoning any principles to get into power. Now, all politics is based around ‘what do I need to do to not lose my mediocre popularity, and so not lose my seat’.
People power is a joke – either because it’s abandoned when it becomes inconvenient (remember the petrol protests when we wouldn’t put up with prices above £1.20 ?), or is so NIMBY/ Self interest based that it never achieves national support. But it’s still HUGELY preferable to putting on a silly mask and dancing around in the street like a yob. If you have the courage of your convictions then (a) show your face and (b) Have the guts to stand for election and try to change the world, rather than whingeing about how you can’t from the sidelines.
Until Brand, and others like him, actually put the effort into doing something, rather than just getting paid (and publicity) for talking about it, they are just as bad as the politicians.

[Perry Vale]

The idea that any of the current woodentops, or their predecessors, could be involved in some massive conspiracy run by big business is laughable. They can’t even keep their lunch orders secret.

Who mentioned anything about a conspiracy, or a secret? It's all out there in the open.

[Rob McCow]

So rather than turn up at protests, etc (which are fun) we should all join the political parties and change them from within?

[Perry Vale]

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Threat to Global Public Health

Delivering yet another blow to this country's Democratic process, President Obama is expected to buck Congressional authority in order to push through a trade agreement with devastating consequences for millions of people. Consistent with its proclivity for secrecy, the Obama administration has revealed little information about its negotiations of a massive "free trade agreement" with eleven nations. These countries, which have been in negotiations since 2008, encompass nearly 40 percent of the global economy.

The clandestine agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), would sidestep domestic laws and protections for national economies in favor of prioritizing the interests of multinational corporations. Slated to become the largest free trade agreement in the world, the TPP is on track to curtail Internet freedom, rollback corporate regulations, end Buy American and Local preferences for government contracts, undermine food safety, diminish fair labor standards, and threaten the health of millions of people. A complete lack of transparency in these secret negotiations is not only in stark contrast with American democratic values but also represents a clear departure from democratic government.

Most of Congress haven't even seen the details of this bill (if they ever will), yet the other day The New York Times endorsed it in their publication. Shoot the messenger (conspiracy theorist) if you like, but don't try to claim that governments aren't working for big business instead of the '99%'...

[Perry Vale]

An interesting piece related to this discussion....

It's business that really rules us now

Since Blair, parliament operates much as Congress in the United States does: the lefthand glove puppet argues with the righthand glove puppet, but neither side will turn around to face the corporate capital that controls almost all our politics.

It's a circus, or rather, a Punch & Judy show.

Thanks to an initiative by Lord Green, large companies have ministerial "buddies", who have to meet them when the companies request it. There were 698 of these meetings during the first 18 months of the scheme, called by corporations these ministers are supposed be regulating. Lord Green, by the way, is currently a government trade minister. Before that he was chairman of HSBC, presiding over the bank while it laundered vast amounts of money stashed by Mexican drugs barons. Ministers, lobbyists – can you tell them apart?

I can't tell them apart from criminals...

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I think Russel Brand is a tw*t, but I have to say I agree with pretty much everything he says there. Take the fact that it's Russel Brand saying the words out of the equation (which is easier to do when it's written down) and just look at the content, and it pretty much sums up everything I feel about our current political system.

You don't get to vote for what you actually want, you just get to choose between two different parties who tell you what THEY want to do. On most of the major issues there's little difference between them. We have absolutely no way to legally hold them to any of their election promises, and whoever gets in always reneges on some of them. Always. Without fail. You only get to have this "say" every 4 or 5 years anyway, and if you live in a constituency that always votes for the same party, as I do, then you essentially don't even have that "say". It's an illusion of a democracy. The only good thing to say about that is that most people are idiots and wouldn't know how to run a country anyway, so it's probably a good thing it isn't a real democracy.

I don't agree with him that "students" were rioting out of some genuine heartfelt anger with the system. We all know what that was really about and it was mainly free trainers and televisions. It was all rather ugly and nasty and not at all something to be celebrated.

I also think it's not doing him any favours to mention Che Guevara either, as it just makes him look like the typical student type who will wear a Che Guevara tshirt or put his poster on their wall without really knowing who he was or what he did or that maybe he wasn't all that great after all.

Oh and I don't really agree with him that together we can make a better system if we all just get along and put our heads together, because I just think most people are a bit stupid and most people don't get along with most other people and that's just a naive hope. Some sort of benign dictatorship is the only way to go

I also just found that if you read that much writing in italics, then when you read the normal writing below it appeart to be leaning slightly the other way for 10 or 20 seconds.

[Perry Vale]

It's an illusion of a democracy.

Agreed.

On the same theme, not much reporting of this in the mainstream media...

Devastating US-EU trade pact would make genocide a legitimate business model

The United States and the European Union are negotiating a free-trade agreement they hail as mutually beneficial but in actuality would allow corporations to supersede countries’ sovereignty and legal framework, says Max Keiser of RT’s The Keiser Report.

The US and EU’s Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) aims to hand foreign corporations ways to evade domestic laws and courts while giving “them the ability to sue the countries for compensatory damages from the economies that they’ve just devastated,” Keiser told RT.

“It gives all the power to the entities that have destroyed the European economy, the big banks that have gutted the European economy,” Keiser said.

[Perry Vale]

It wasn't too surprising when Russell Brand spoke out, but really, Matt Damon....?!

http://daily.represent.us/matt-damon-blows-your-mind/