Smirking_Saint Posted 26 March, 2015 Posted 26 March, 2015 The youngsters I deal with believe that the way we are governed needs to be radically changed as does the way wealth is generated and distributed. They listen to Brand's ideas and they get it and like it. We as a generation may not like it, or even understand why others do, but the simple truth is, he's hit a cord with a swathe of young people. But what ideas does he bring to the table ? All I see is a man that is able to, with the use of verbal acrobatics extend the sentance 'the current establishment needs to change' just long enough for people to believe he actually has an idea of how to do it. Does capitalism work ? Not 100%, but socialism has its pitfalls too. The bloke doesnt habe a single coherant idea of how to change, amd frankly Im not interested in people that go on and on about the need for change without an idea about how.
Sour Mash Posted 26 March, 2015 Posted 26 March, 2015 Nope, but you asked for an example and I've given you some. So the same as sections of youth in every generation before they grow up and happily get on with their lives, rather than any actually, meaningful ideas of making the world better.
Turkish Posted 26 March, 2015 Posted 26 March, 2015 Nope, but you asked for an example and I've given you some. In the 70s they became punks In the 80s they fought on the terraces In the 90s they popped e's In the 00s they were metrosexual In the 10s they listened to Russell brand. Kind of sums up why the future of this country is f*cked doesn't it.
tedmaul Posted 26 March, 2015 Posted 26 March, 2015 Actually sorry just watched this, he did at one point compare himself to Jesus. Evan Davis is one of the smartest and best but should have controlled the interview better
sadoldgit Posted 27 March, 2015 Author Posted 27 March, 2015 I hate brand because he has suckled Katy Perry. That makes me sad Best reason of all.
pap Posted 27 March, 2015 Posted 27 March, 2015 Oh, 9/11 is a conspiracy by the US too. Yeah, Evan Davis was really trying to get him to say that, wasn't he? Brand owned him on that point and gave an eloquent answer. Did make me laugh though.
Jonnyboy Posted 27 March, 2015 Posted 27 March, 2015 In the 70s they became punks In the 80s they fought on the terraces In the 90s they popped e's In the 00s they were metrosexual In the 10s they listened to Russell brand. Kind of sums up why the future of this country is f*cked doesn't it. Brand could be seen as a combination of the previous four.
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Posted 4 May, 2015 90 minute interview with Owen Jones here. I like it. Brand in all his forms, really. Covers the not voting thing, accusations of ego, etc. Deftly handled, I reckon - and if there is one thing I'd take from this as overwhelmingly positive, it's the part where he suggests that people should continually seek the better angels of their nature and attempt to deal with others on that level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JduqBw2jIbo. Not always easy, of course
sadoldgit Posted 4 May, 2015 Author Posted 4 May, 2015 I see that Brand has now changed his mind about not voting and is urging people to vote Labour. I wonder what it was that changed his mind?
Orange Posted 4 May, 2015 Posted 4 May, 2015 Brand is full of contradictions. He urges people to vote Labour because he says 'they'll listen to people', yet this is the same party which wants to drive the UK into ever closer political union with the EU, but without ever giving the surfs a say on our future and whether we want this. He always goes on about 'power to the people'/localised powers and being against 'the corporates'/powerful elite, yet he continues to give his undivided support to the EU and the centralisation of powers, and derides the one party who has stood up against it at every chance he gets. One of the things that really grates me about him is he thinks anyone who's working class and doesn't view the world through his marxist lenses, is therefore 'brainwashed'. He doesn't believe people are capable of thinking for themselves and coming to a different conclusion to him. He thinks they're 'poor uneducated folk' who need to be patted on the back and brought round to his view point.
Mr Biscuits Posted 5 May, 2015 Posted 5 May, 2015 I once challenged a young lady who I worked with to explain how her decision to follow his advice and not vote would cause change on the basis that systems can only truly be changed from within. Within a minute she had reduced herself to tears and stormed from the room. I wasn't even trying.
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 5 May, 2015 Posted 5 May, 2015 He's more fraud than Foucault I think. If you manufacture a appealing counter-culture persona and sprinkle your prose with sufficient pseudo intellectual phrases such as ''geopolitical'' or ''leverage'' then it's easy enough to hoodwink a youthful audience and come across (to the more credulous amongst them anyway) as a knowledgeable and thoughtful commentator on the big issues of the day - but only if they don't look beyond the superficial image presented to see the substance of what lays beneath. He has certainly acquired a audience among the young, so politicians will obviously seek to exploit that fact to bypass the mainstream media and engage with them directly. However, I see precious little of real worth here, beyond that which you might find in any 'bog standard' 6th Form debating society that is. In others words a poseur who's image and vocabulary is employed to 'paper over' the inconsistency's in his arguments. A 21st century Voltaire he ain't.
pap Posted 5 May, 2015 Posted 5 May, 2015 Wow, after the top 4 big influential thinkers there's a real drop off in cordiality. And thinking
St_Tel49 Posted 6 May, 2015 Posted 6 May, 2015 He's a decent orator & challenges accepted orthodoxy so more of his ilk and less of the bland. A decent orator? who doesn't understand the meaning of half the words that he uses just to sound intellectual and clever. Spare me!
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 May, 2015 Posted 7 May, 2015 A decent orator? who doesn't understand the meaning of half the words that he uses just to sound intellectual and clever. Spare me! Hitler was a good orator. That didn't mean that he was right. (Can we apply Godwin's Law now? )
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 7 May, 2015 Posted 7 May, 2015 Hitler was a good orator. That didn't mean that he was right. (Can we apply Godwin's Law now? ) I disagree, whenever I see a video with Hitler giving a speech, I can't understand a ****ing word.
sadoldgit Posted 7 May, 2015 Author Posted 7 May, 2015 Hitler was a good orator. That didn't mean that he was right. (Can we apply Godwin's Law now? ) Many megalomaniac, sociopathic dictators were/are good orators. Must go hand in hand with their personality disorders and over inflated egos.
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 May, 2015 Posted 7 May, 2015 Many megalomaniac, sociopathic dictators were/are good orators. Must go hand in hand with their personality disorders and over inflated egos. Very true, you should hear me speak
View From The Top Posted 7 May, 2015 Posted 7 May, 2015 A decent orator? who doesn't understand the meaning of half the words that he uses just to sound intellectual and clever. Spare me! Cheers for the input. I'll mull it over and get back to you. Honest.
TheCholulaKid Posted 7 May, 2015 Posted 7 May, 2015 who doesn't understand the meaning of half the words that he uses I don't particularly like the bloke but this is a patently ridiculous statement. Take a few minutes to read what he says and he clearly does.
Batman Posted 10 May, 2015 Posted 10 May, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3075121/Poor-old-Russell-wants-launch-revolution-quaintly-capitalist-fashion-wants-brand-spelling-sell-trinkets-masses.html
Viking Warrior Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 Brand is such a P**** From ITV News Russell Brand has called Friday's minute's silence for the victims of the Tunisia beach massacre "total bullsh*t", suggesting the UK government's foreign policy caused the attack which killed at least 29 Britons. "There's no point in having a minute's silence on Friday - it's a minute of bullsh*t," the comedian says in a video on his YouTube channel. "As long as during that time, they [the Government] continue to sell arms, they continue to bomb foreign countries - they have no interest in a solution. They are only interest is perpetuating the problem and continuing to profit from it." He should be sent to join the and then our special forces can legitimately take him out
bridge too far Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 Someone else who 'doesn't think' who has come up with another view on the one minute's silence http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11708999/Do-we-need-a-minutes-silence-to-mourn-those-killed-in-the-Tunisian-attack.html
SuperMikey Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 He's absolutely right - the minute's silence is an utterly futile gesture. Obviously these attacks are horrific but we perpetuate the cycle of violence that this is a part of by peddling arms to anyone willing to pay. Each gun that we sell to a country on our own 'human rights abusers' list is potentially another incident like this (only it probably won't involve British people so it doesn't really matter).
Lighthouse Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 Who do we actually sell arms to? I hear this argument thrown around a lot without anything to back it up. I know we've sold stuff to some unpopular regimes like the Saudis and even people like Saddam in the past but terrorist organisations?
Sour Mash Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 He's absolutely right - the minute's silence is an utterly futile gesture. Obviously these attacks are horrific but we perpetuate the cycle of violence that this is a part of by peddling arms to anyone willing to pay. Each gun that we sell to a country on our own 'human rights abusers' list is potentially another incident like this (only it probably won't involve British people so it doesn't really matter). Why does where we sell arms to influence someone to shoot a load of people on holiday to death? For what it's worth, I wouldn't have a minute's silence for this incident, but the Telegraph piece articulates why, not Brand.
Pancake Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 Who do we actually sell arms to? I hear this argument thrown around a lot without anything to back it up. I know we've sold stuff to some unpopular regimes like the Saudis and even people like Saddam in the past but terrorist organisations? From the top of my head based on some research I did recently to prove a point in the office (these were deals within the last 10 years) Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Belarus, Argentina, China, Zimbabwe, Israel and Sri Lanka. Not exhaustive, obvs.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 I thought the minutes silence was in respect to the innocent people killed by an utter f ucktard who managed to get his hands on a kalashnikov? Not a political statement.
sadoldgit Posted 2 July, 2015 Author Posted 2 July, 2015 Who do we actually sell arms to? I hear this argument thrown around a lot without anything to back it up. I know we've sold stuff to some unpopular regimes like the Saudis and even people like Saddam in the past but terrorist organisations? Didn't he use a Russian weapon?
Batman Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 brand is a moron. even his followers were starting to turn on him at a recent rally in London
aintforever Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 He's got a point, by invading Iraq the British government effectively created ISIS.
Batman Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 He's got a point, by invading Iraq the British government effectively created ISIS. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=when%20was%20isis%20created
aintforever Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=when%20was%20isis%20created Exactly, by helping the U.S. destroy Iraq our country has created the problem that exists today. Quote below: In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
Batman Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 Exactly, by helping the U.S. destroy Iraq our country has created the problem that exists today. Quote below: In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root. no wonder saddam and his ilk were pretty harsh leaders. Look at the animals he had to keep caged
Jonnyboy Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 (edited) Who do we actually sell arms to? I hear this argument thrown around a lot without anything to back it up. I know we've sold stuff to some unpopular regimes like the Saudis and even people like Saddam in the past but terrorist organisations? Plenty of evidence that we armed Syrian opposition groups before working out which ones were "moderate" and which ones were ISIS. Thanks William Hague. Edited 2 July, 2015 by Jonnyboy
Viking Warrior Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 Ainforever it wasn't the British gov who created Is . There were a number of factors , saddam didn't help, he persecuted the Shia and marsh Arabs . Then there Moqtada . Then the fragments that remained from Al queda . Then there's syria each have filled the void that was left as there wasn't a coherent exit strategy once the western forces withdrew . A decision was taken to withdraw from Iraq and afghan probably for financial reasons . As for brand he should have said nothing and kept his thoughts to himself .?i did wonder about the minutes silence and also the military precision repatriation . I get the reason why .it is about showing solidarity and a United front against these terrorists as well as showing respect to those that have been murdered .
aintforever Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 A number of factors but the vacume left after the Iraq war is the only reason they have grown to the size they are now. Fact is the only real concern for the U.S. and UK was the security of the oil, the rest was just left to rot. The only reason IS flourish is because many people prefer them to the Shia alternative, that is a situation our government helped create.
hutch Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 And Syria? And Yemen? And Somalia? And Nigeria? And Mali? And Afghanistan? And Pakistan?
Sour Mash Posted 2 July, 2015 Posted 2 July, 2015 A number of factors but the vacume left after the Iraq war is the only reason they have grown to the size they are now. Fact is the only real concern for the U.S. and UK was the security of the oil, the rest was just left to rot. The only reason IS flourish is because many people prefer them to the Shia alternative, that is a situation our government helped create. Or the Iraqi people could have governed themselves via a democratically elected government after the removal of an evil dictator? I agree that a lot more planning should have gone into a rebuilding plan, but I don't think anyone had envisaged this much of an utter mess.
Bananaman Posted 3 July, 2015 Posted 3 July, 2015 A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Over the past decade alone, US and UK foreign policy has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings across the middle east and Africa. Of course I do not condone any act of violence against other human beings but the actions of individuals such as Seifiddine Rezgui are directly motivated by the deaths of innocent muslim men, women and children at the hands of our government. Read some Chomsky, read Blum, read Owen Jones, read Bakan, Irrespective of how you feel about Brand. People are so ready to discredit individuals that do not share their views ('I do not agree with Brand therefore he must be a moron'). The only reason Brand still has a voice in the political sphere is because what he says seems to resinate with people (or a select group of people). His key message however is surely relevant; we are being sold the concept of 'the west vs terrorism', 'Terrorist groups are trying to destroy our way of life' etc etc when it is clearly not that simple. The UK and US governments are responsible for a much greater number of deaths abroad then will ever be committed by 'terrorist' organisations.
Special K Posted 7 July, 2015 Posted 7 July, 2015 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/russell-brands-insult-tunisia-beach-6001941 No, he is a prize c**t - even the Mirror agrees.
SuperMikey Posted 7 July, 2015 Posted 7 July, 2015 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/russell-brands-insult-tunisia-beach-6001941 No, he is a prize c**t - even the Mirror agrees. You're using a Carole Malone piece as evidence for that? Really? She's one to talk about grabbing headlines... n 2009, a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about one of Malone's columns in the News of the World which claimed that illegal immigrants receive "free cars", led to the publication of the following clarification by the paper: On July 26, our columnist Carole Malone claimed illegal immigrants receive "free cars". We now accept illegal immigrants do not receive such a benefit and apologise for the error.[2][3] On May 14, 2012, Malone said on national TV that the murders of six children were "an accident waiting to happen" because they were benefits claimants.[4] This led to a storm of controversy as reported in the Daily Mail on 17 May.[5] If you watch Brand's follow-up video (i'll even put it below) responding to comments that Jeremy Kyle made, he articulates fairly well about this just being part of a wider social context - why are people getting so riled up about somebody saying that a minute's silence isn't particularly worthwhile when we're flogging arms that people use to commit this kind of atrocity to just about anyone? Doesn't make sense to me...
sadoldgit Posted 7 July, 2015 Author Posted 7 July, 2015 If we held a minute's silence for everyone who had ever been killed in a terrorist atrocity no one would speak again.
Special K Posted 7 July, 2015 Posted 7 July, 2015 You're using a Carole Malone piece as evidence for that? Really? She's one to talk about grabbing headlines... If you watch Brand's follow-up video (i'll even put it below) responding to comments that Jeremy Kyle made, he articulates fairly well about this just being part of a wider social context - why are people getting so riled up about somebody saying that a minute's silence isn't particularly worthwhile when we're flogging arms that people use to commit this kind of atrocity to just about anyone? Doesn't make sense to me... As "evidence" that I think he's a c**t! No - he's quite capable of convincing me he's one anyway. I was just pointing out that others think that too. You may like him and that's cool. But I think he's a c**t. Simple.
Special K Posted 7 July, 2015 Posted 7 July, 2015 If we held a minute's silence for everyone who had ever been killed in a terrorist atrocity no one would speak again. Nice timing that, what with the 7/7 bombing victims remembered today. Well done.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now