Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: russell brand nails it

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 15, 2014, 7:32 a.m. EST by flip (7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

JEREMY PAXMAN: Is it true you don’t even vote?

RUSSELL BRAND: Yeah, no, I don’t vote.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well, how do you have any authority to talk about politics then?

RUSSELL BRAND: Well, I don’t get my authority from this pre-existing paradigm which is quite narrow and only serves a few people. I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity. Alternative means alternative political systems.

JEREMY PAXMAN: They being?

RUSSELL BRAND: Well, I’ve not invented it yet, Jeremy. I had to do a magazine last week. I’ve had a lot on my plate. But I say—but here’s the thing that you shouldn’t do: shouldn’t destroy the planet, shouldn’t create massive economic disparity, shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people. The burden of proof is on the people with the power, not people who like doing a magazine for a novelty.

JEREMY PAXMAN: How do you imagine that people get power?

RUSSELL BRAND: Well, I imagine there are sort of hierarchical systems that have been preserved through generations—

JEREMY PAXMAN: They get power by being voted in. That’s how they get it.

RUSSELL BRAND: Well, you say that, Jeremy, but like—

JEREMY PAXMAN: You can’t even be asked to vote.

RUSSELL BRAND: It’s quite narrow—quite a narrow prescriptive parameter that changes within the—

JEREMY PAXMAN: In a democracy, that’s how it works.

RUSSELL BRAND: Well, I don’t think it’s working very well, Jeremy, given that the planet is being destroyed, given that there is economic disparity of a huge degree. What you’re saying, there’s no alternative. There’s no alternative, just this system.

JEREMY PAXMAN: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying—

RUSSELL BRAND: Brilliant.

JEREMY PAXMAN: —if you can’t be asked to vote, why should we be asked to listen to your political point of view?

RUSSELL BRAND: You don’t have to listen to my political point of view. But it’s not that I’m not voting out of apathy. I’m not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now and which has now reached fever pitch, where we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that are not being represented by that political system. So, voting for it is tacit complicity with that system, and that’s not something I’m offering up.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Why don’t you change it then?

RUSSELL BRAND: I’m trying to.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well, why don’t you start by voting?

RUSSELL BRAND: I don’t think it works. People have voted already, and that’s what’s created the current paradigm.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Well, when did you last vote?

RUSSELL BRAND: Never.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You’ve never, ever voted?

RUSSELL BRAND: No. Do you think that’s really bad?

JEREMY PAXMAN: So, you’ve struck an attitude, what? Before the age of 18?

RUSSELL BRAND: Well, I was busy being a drug addict at that point, because I come from the kind of social conditions that are exacerbated by an indifferent system that really just administrates for large corporations and ignores the population that it was voted in to serve.

JEREMY PAXMAN: But you’re veiling the—you’re blaming the political class for the fact that you had a drug problem?

RUSSELL BRAND: No, no, no. I’m saying I was part of a social and economic class that is underserved by the current political system, and drug addiction is one of the problems it creates. When you have huge underserved, impoverished populations, people get drug problems and also don’t feel like they want to engage with the current political system, because they see that it doesn’t work for them. They see that it makes no difference. They see that they’re not served. I say that the apathy—

JEREMY PAXMAN: But of course it doesn’t work for them if they don’t bother to vote.

RUSSELL BRAND: Jeremy, my darling, I’m not saying that—the apathy doesn’t come from us, the people. The apathy comes from the politicians. They are apathetic to our needs. They’re only interested in servicing the needs of corporations. Look at where—ain’t the Tories going to court, taking the EU to court? It’s because they’re trying to curtail bank bonuses. Is that what’s happening at the moment in our country?

79 Comments

79 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

Russell Brand is speaking powerfully, clearly and with real brilliance for the 99% these days, and TPTB are trying to take him down because he is speaking truth to power and that is a threat to the status quo.

RUSSELL BRAND: "You don’t have to listen to my political point of view. But it’s not that I’m not voting out of apathy. I’m not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now and which has now reached fever pitch, where we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that are not being represented by that political system. So, voting for it is tacit complicity with that system, and that’s not something I’m offering up."

Wow, that Jeremy Paxman comes off looking like a really thick dolt, asking Russell Brand the same question over and over again. Look, people, Russell has it right. Voting in this system merely is voting to keep this system, and this system is not working for the majority of people. Hence, the low voter turn out in the U.S. Calling Russell Brand apathetic is absolutely freaking ridiculous! He's made it his calling to fight for the 99% and he talks about their plight constantly and has written a book where the proceeds are donated to 99% causes. Apathetic? Really! What a joke.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

right on beauty

[+] -5 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Oh, it's you, SSS.

Guess you're playing an evil Murder She Wrote.

Just a little more Koch-Sucker cock slobber.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

Come on, you can stoop lower than that! I know you can!

Get it through your head, nutter, this is the Occupy Wall Street forum, not the Democratic Party forum. The Democratic Party is way too far to the right for us. We, on the left, demand much more from them.

No to the status quo!

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

First, tell me how I can get lower than identifying you as really being Shadz sixy sx (SSS)? You may have a point.

Second, how am I a nutter when YOU believe in unicorns??

And in whose delusional mind does not Voting make this a better democracy??

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

can't you find a better place to do your childish rants.

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

IDIOCRACY!

Brand is a mostly good child.

another SSS handle?

[-] 3 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

O M G. That is too cool. Great speakout for the rest of us who aren't being interviewed! I want to give more thumbs up than I have thumbs, can I do that?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

sure why not!

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

???

[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

Jesus God damn fucking Christ you morons. What the hell will it take to get through to you? Can't you understand even the most basic principles of economics or human nature? What the hell do you think led to so much government, business, and societal corruption to begin with?

How in the name of all that is logical within the universe do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS hope to make even the slightest difference for the lower majority, the people you CLAIM to care about without addressing the OBSCENE and GROWING share of private wealth held by the INDIVIDUALS who make up the 1%?

How in the name of all that is logical within the universe do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS hope to make even the slightest difference for the lower majority, the people you CLAIM to care about without addressing their own IDIOTIC spending habits which INCLUDE handing over HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of DOLLARS and POUNDS to celebrity pigs?

Where in the holy fuck do all of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS think the 'corporations' got most of their money to begin with? Have any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS even bothered to do any research into his HYPOCRITE PIG background?

Do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS have any idea how many powerful, corrupt, and GOVERNMENT INFLUENCING corporations he has VOLUNTARILY supported using the MILLIONS you and the rest of his IDIOT FANS have given him? Don't any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS realize that by praising him, you actually SAVE him and his CORPORATE GOVERNMENT INFLUENCING PRODUCT RETAILERS MILLIONS over the cost of traditional advertising thereby contributing to the 'paradigm' that Russell Brand has the GALL to run his multi-deca-millionaire hypocrite pig mouth about?

What in the name of all that is logical within the universe do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS hope to accomplish by taking his advice and allowing CONSERVATIVE VOTERS run of the political board from now on?

How in the name of all that is logical within the universe do any of you Russell Brand promoting MORONS hope to reform ANYTHING within the corrupt 'system' without addressing the particular form of evil at the very heart of government corruption?

THE VERY CONCEPT OF EXTREME PERSONAL WEALTH.

Wealth concentrating and poverty causing 1% pig entry level net worth. Approximately $9 million.

Wealth concentrating and poverty causing 1% pig average net worth. Approximately $16 million.

WEALTH CONCENTRATING AND POVERTY CAUSING RUSSELL BRAND PIG CURRENT NET WORTH. $20 MILLION AND COUNTING THANKS TO ALL OF YOU AND THE REST OF HIS IDIOT FANS.

CH'CHING!

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 years ago

I wasn't aware that Russell was asking for donations on his show. Did I miss something?

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

The $20,000,000 and counting.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

clearly logic is not your strong suit - i think using the caps lock key is.i made a few simple points and you do not want to answer them so you must know that logic is not on your side here. the system not the person is the problem - you must agree. russell is attacking the system and pointing out the inequity of that system. i say - golly good show RB. you seem to want him to give away all his money - then would you listen to him? would that do anything to change the system - no obviously not. seems very logical that using his celebrity platform to call out the inequity in the system is more helpful. have you given away all your money - lead the way on this one mr capitalist - tell us what good that does. instead of attacking RB how about attacking those in power who have created this system and dismantled the one that was at least somewhat more fair from the post war era. why don't you do that - is it because all those dems we have been voting for have done the dismantling? not really sure but you seem to want people to vote rather than read what RB says. is that your position? just so you know i do believe that you are a talk show host (probably the only one here who does) since you use many words and say little.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

You must have the attention span of a nit.

The rest of you go back and read the entire exchange.

As I've said MANY times all over the web, talk radio, and here, the 'problem' is EVERYTHING and EVERONE that contribute to the OBSCENE, IMMORAL, and ILLOGICAL concentration of wealth.

No exceptions for multi-deca-millionaire celebrity pigs no matter what they pretend to stand for.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

while it may be true that we all share in the blame for the situation we are in, some are more responsible than others - no? we can blame the camp guard or the poor grunt in vietnam for the evil they do but the architects of the policy are the real culprits - no? all others are victims of that policy - including the camp guard and the marine with the m16 in the rice paddy. if you cannot see that then i am sorry for you - no i am sorry for you anyway - you're just stupid. you're a talk show host right - must be - long winded sad sack.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

Damn right we are all to blame. When I was in my twenties, I spent nearly $20,000 on video games, systems, accessories, and movies. I'm honestly not sure about Sega, but in general, profit margins for video games, DVDs, and CDs are OBSCENE. At the time, I was too stupid to realize the harm done by retailers like WallMart where I bought dozens of them.

I can't undo what I've done but I will tell you one thing right now.

Never again.

Once I became aware of the COW, I changed my spending habits drastically. Now, I can't spend a dollar without first giving thought to the size and distribution of profits.

I would rather spend my money on a turd than a new video game, popular movie or album. I'd rather spend it at a yard sale than at WalMart. I'd rather burn it then spend it at Amazon, ITunes, or ANY digital download site. I'm not entirely against mass produced items but I am sworn against giant profits and the very concept of extreme personal wealth.

Never again.

I'm not a talk show host. I'm a regular caller.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

well you can stop shopping all you want it will not change the "system." it is pretty much the same as going off into the woods and living off the land - or committing suicide. they take you out of the system but makes no real difference. that has not been what has changed the world through out history. it is not people dropping out but people getting engaged. the teach ins were the first step in the organizing to end the war in vietnam. we must educate ourselves about what is wrong and what can be done. that is why you are not helping here and Rb is.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

I haven't removed myself from the system. Instead, I make damn sure that as buying power is transferred through me, the bulk works it's way DOWN OR ACROSS instead of WAY UP.

I can't achieve much as a single consumer but if the masses were to make similar changes to their spending habits, then HOLY FUCK.

We could EASILY redistribute TRILLIONS in private wealth within a matter of years.

Russell Brand and all of his idiot fans are achieving the exact opposite.

Ch'Ching!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

Who would you choose to speak for and to the 99%? Who would you choose that would reach the most people, in terms of sheer numbers, and also in terms of how clearly they elucidate very complex issues, and therefore "reach" the people?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

nicely done

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

For starters, someone without a HUGE conflict of hypocritical wealth concentrating interest. Also someone willing to address GREED as the intoxicating and corrupt form of EVIL that it truly is.

I haven't read any Russell Brand books and I don't plan to. But I did read the entire transcript of the interview. He didn't address any of the complexities of economics. Not even the basics. He didn't even address the relationship between the COW and economic instability.

He is 'reaching' many. No doubt about that. Unfortunately, his message is only partly legitimate. The rest is crap.

Meanwhile, the wealth continues to concentrate, some of it in the name of Russell Brand, and the worst depression of all time draws near.

Not one of us will live to see a recovery.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

StillMod, most politicians are extremely wealthy. So, how do we justify voting for them?

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

http://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives

Shouldn't they be held to an even higher standard of poverty than just some random person speaking on behalf of the 99%? And, I guess you don't have anyone who is poor, has a following, who has charisma, and who bothers to speak on behalf of the 99%. I'm not surprised really. The only person that comes to mind for me is Kshama Sawant, and I'm not sure how big her reach is.

Also, look at history, most revolutionaries had wealth and clout. So, what should we do today? Stick our heads in the sand and hope that the 99% can get it together on their own? I'm serious here. I'm not criticizing you, I think we need this debate because we need to figure this out.

OWS did a lot to change the mindset of the American people. It put class consciousness into their heads. But, it needs to be taken to the next level.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

Beautifulworld, I like you. As far as I can tell, you are true to the cause. But when you misinterpret plain English, put words at my fingers and make shallow and ignorant assumptions as if you are TOTALLY UNAWARE of what I've been preaching RELENTLESSLY here for years and all over the web and talk radio for nearly a decade, it makes me seriously wonder if I should bother communicating with any of you.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

you are right and the only way that will happen is if the public is educated and organized. seems to me that RB is trying to do some of that educating? apparently you cannot see that.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

He admits that both major parties are corrupt and sold out to corporations but pretends as of there is no difference between the two. He makes a reference to the richest 300 Americans but TOTALLY DISREGARDS the most intoxicating form of EVIL at the heart of government, business, and societal corruption. He totally disregards the TRILLIONS in wealth concentrated beneath the richest 300 in order to escape blame for the $20,000,000 he has PERSONALLY concentrated so far. Finally, he pleads with those of us concerned with 'massive economic disparity' to stop voting. By doing so, he aids conservatives who have a long history of doing even more favors for the rich thereby concentrating even more wealth than the Democratic party.

He is a lousy spokesperson for our cause. Assuming that we share one which I'm not sure of anymore.

Meanwhile, the wealth continues to concentrate, some of it in the name of Russell Brand, and the worst depression of all time draws near.

Not one of us will live to see a recovery.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

I will stick to Chris Hedges...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

i didn't realize we could only read one person - if so i will stick to chomsky. sadly neither one has the ability to reach as many people as russell

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

A former drug addict and celebrity....hmmm haven't heard that cliché before ( also marketing his book...while speaking on our behalf) whatever floats your boat, I just think we could have better spokespeople. Ones that the public don't most memorably know from roles portraying a playboy manchild boob.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

I say we take the help from all who are willing. Your complaining about who he is or was and not addressing what he says. What's your problem?

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

PR ...occupy is already fighting the lazy slacker free ride propaganda...occupy is not a joke and I want so one who speaks seriously not throwing out soundbites where one can't quite tell if it's part of a boyish comedy routine or the incoherent ramblings of a bad hangover. We aren't desperate...this movement has teeth and the roots are firmly embedded in the political landscape. No amount of pesticide is going to kill it but... while we need media coverage ...we need the right kind of coverage. Chris Hedges is brilliant enough to know how language can be turned into negative spin and so chooses his words in ways they can't be turned or misconstrued. Unfortunately dealing with the corporate media has become a chess game. One has to be smart enough to know where they will move their pieces. So you can throw someone like Brand in front of them...and watch them wilt the fruits so hard accomplished done with so little media coverage....in a two second sound bite.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

like i said all those willing to help. i am not sure you are correct about ows being firmly embedded in the landscape. our side of the story has been around for 100's of years and yet here we are - bombing the world and fighting for crumbs. i hope you are right but i do not understand why the "left" always eats it's own. cointelpro shit seems is a big part of that - no?

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

Its not a left or right stance...it is about what is fair...nobody puts baby in a corner and noone likes being taken advantage of. Power mongers have always tried to take control...it is not a fight to win. It is a state of vigilence with which we must live to keep our democracy and individual freedoms. We will never win it. We Can only keep it in balance...its tipping over again.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

Academics have a very limited audience and people are suspicious of them too. Someone like Russell Brand can reach so many people who normally would pay no attention to these issues. He speaks clearly and seems to be just as intelligent as the academics. Go figure. I'll take it. I think the 99% need more Russell Brands.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

We agree. But you know that already

[-] 2 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

Good post. We might still be the few, but altruistic people who speak "truth to power," often sacrificing their positions in life are the best.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

This makes Russell Brand a disgusting false hero hypocrite pig.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

The wealth gap between the richest Americans and the typical family more than doubled over the past 50 years.

In 1962, the top 1% had 125 times the net worth of the median household. That shot up to 288 times by 2010, according to a new report by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

Are you better off?

That trend is happening for two reasons: Not only are the rich getting richer, but the middle class is also getting poorer.

Most Americans below the upper echelon have suffered a decline in wealth in recent decades. The median household saw its net worth drop to $57,000 in 2010, down from $73,000 in 1983. It would have been $119,000 had wealth grown equally across households.

The top 1%, on the other hand, saw their average wealth grow to $16.4 million, up from $9.6 million in 1983. This is due in large part to the growing income inequality divide, as well as the sharp rise in value of stocks over the period.

Russell Brand, currently worth $20,000,000 and counting.

This also makes Russell Brand a disgusting false hero hypocrite pig. https://www.accountancylive.com/bank-basher-russell-brand-raises-film-finance-city

Russell Brand also owns at least one 4000+ square foot mansion that I know of, at least two gas guzzling exotic cars that I know of, has been known to rent a Lamborghini, and travels extensively for unnecessary business and pleasure.

Russell Brand was briefly married to hundred-millionaire Katy Perry and was until very recently, involved with Jemima Khan, the daughter of a billionaire tycoon.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2556756/Russell-Brand-takes-control-luggage-jets-romantic-break-girlfriend-Jemima-Khan.html

Now, while promoting a new book and movie, Russell Brand masquerades as a champion of 'equality' and defender of the planet in part, by encouraging the masses not to vote.

Meanwhile Russell Brand continues to concentrate wealth and jet set this mostly poor but beautiful and unfortunately, warming world.

This will be confirmed in a year or so when the reports of Russell Brand's net worth are updated.

[-] 3 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

I don't know if I understand you. You want us to view Russell Brand as a "disgustung false hero hypocrite pig," too..?? Before we decide, is it OK if we take into consideration how eloqently he speaks for the 99%? Do we now have to see all poor people as being good, and all people who have money as being bad?? Nothing else should be considered...I guess.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

Very nice job there

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

The very concept of extreme personal wealth is a self-centered, shallow, and immoral pursuit. A growing plague on society. It corrupts everything. It intoxicates everyone. In addition, wealth concentration has been thoroughly proven to cause economic instability.

Those who disregard the harm done by wealth concentration can not be trusted.

We should stick to the 1% mantra making no exceptions for anyone.

43% of privately held financial wealth is too much for a single percentile and $20,000,000 in total wealth is too much for one man.

Show me a celebrity who sets themselves apart by SETTING a notable example by VOLUNTARILY steping down to the lower ranks of the 1% and I'll show you an exception to the rule.

[-] 3 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

I'm just baffled as to why you would want to carry on such a venemous rant about Russell Brand, who speaks very well for our struggle.

I mean, why would you not carry on a rant like that about the Republicans or Democrats, who work in complicity to screw us on a more deleterious, regular basis? Have you already ranted about both parties? Haven't you advocated for the Democrats on this forum before? Isn't this rant kinda troll-like & divisive? In fairness to you tho..., it probably just seems that way 'cause we are at an Occupy forum.

Why would you not choose to instead foam at the mouth about...err.say Lloyd Blankfein, or hey how 'bout Jamie Dimon, or Larry Summers, etc, etc.? There are tons of really evil dudes who continue to carry out Friedman's corrupt policies, and that is to our severe detriment. Brand is not one of those dudes!

BTW for disclosure sake, My home is well under "4,000+ square foot.." The incrimination level that you have set forth..Whew!.. and my bank account is miniscule....err thank god. That should make me safe for now...heh?

If I hit the lottery tho..., I won't tell you, but you can bet that I will still be here, because I know that this revolution is not about rich vs poor. Instead it will continue to focus far more on putting malfeasant politians and corrupt individuals..... who have put their interests far in front of ours'....in JAIL.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

RB is only the latest in a long line of false heroes that I have ripped on.

Because he is another false hero dumbing down the world. That's why.

The mansion is 4800 square feet interior.

Corrupt individuals who put their interests in front of ours. That's a good one.

What do you call the intentional concentration of $20,000,000?

By the way, telling ordinary people not to vote helps the rich.

[-] 2 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

Oh so, can I deduce that you believe that "false hero[es]," like Brand (to you), are the main problem here...now?

Gee, I thought that it was the evil people and malfeasant politicians that were the main problems. You know.... the people who rigged a corrupt system (with the help of the Dems & Repubs) that greatly benefit'$ them to our severe detriment.

So by implication, I guess that I can assume that you beleive that if we voted in more Democrats, that things will be different this time.

Finally, whether "ordinary people" vote or not is not the problem, rather it is the people who they vote for, and the irreparably corrupt parties that they belong to... That's the problem.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

The 'problem' is everything and everyone that contribute to the obscene concentration of wealth.

This includes the masses who are at least 1/2 responsible for the obscene concentration of wealth they now live under. So far, they have given Russell Brand enough to leave him with a $20,000,000 fortune even after taxes and expenses. This is just one example of many which contribute to the problem.

The global depression will come regardless of who we vote for. But it will come sooner and more severe with more conservatives in power.

Russell Brand is encouraging a large group made up primarily of centrists and liberals not to vote. This aids conservatives who have a long history of doing even more favors for the rich thereby concentrating even more wealth than Democrats.

I will not support RB's 'don't vote' campaign and I will not make excuses for multi-deca-millionaires.

[-] 3 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

Let's see, so you are attempting to have us refocus our attention on "false hero[es]", by denigrating those people who speak so eloquently for our cause, AND who like me believe that our political parties are garbage,

You reckon that we should vote for more Democrats to save us?? Is that your insidious-like message to us?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

Again, I'm attempting to focus your attention on everything and everyone that contribute to the obscene concentration of wealth. This includes the false hero Russell Brand.

He doesn't do our cause one shred of real world justice. He has already personally concentrated $20,000,000. He is in the process of concentrating more, thereby causing more hardship, corruption, and economic instability. Now, he is pleading with non-conservatives to stop voting altogether.

Russell Brand is a conservative-aiding, multi-deca-millionaire, global warming, wealth concentrating, false hero, hypocrite pig.

What is your purpose here with me? To argue in a circular fashion right up to the end of thread limits?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

so what exactly is your problem here - that he has money or that he is telling people not to vote. do you know how much money chomsky has - or nader - should we only listen to those who are poor- does chris hedges have any money. is he saving for retirement - does he accept pay for speaking. you should think this through.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

How many God damn times do I need to spell this out?

ALWAYS VOTE FOR THE LESSER EVIL BUT DO NOT ENCOURAGE OR EXCUSE THE OBSCENE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH. DO NOT PRAISE OR EXCUSE THOSE WHO CONCENTRATE IT.

No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities.
No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities.

No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities.

No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities.

No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities.

No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities. No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities.

[-] 3 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

Will you be making an "...exception for deca-millionaire celebrities" who are either Democrats or Republicans when you vote in a silly attempt to bring about systemic change?

"Millionaire's Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus"

Six of the ten wealthiest members of Congress were Democrats in 2011, and the wealthiest was worth more than 14 times as much as RB, and the tenth wealthiest was worth more than twice as much as Mr Brand, and that does not take into account all of the billions of dollars taken in by their corrupt parties to advance the interests of corporations and banks, as I have said before.

Have you shaved yet, and have you learned how to spell HYPOCRITE yet?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

Damn right I would rather vote for poor politician than a rich politician. God damn fucking right I would. But we RARELY have such a choice.

It's not hypocrisy when you are left with NO CHOICE but to vote for the lesser of EVIL.

One or the other WILL TAKE OFFICE regardless.

Every single time.

It's not hypocrisy by any stretch of the imagination.

Update: 10/22/14. Quit putting words at my fingers. Of course, I'm for alternative action. After all, I'm one of many protesting as we type. But we don't have the authority to change laws with the stroke of a pen. Politicians do. For that reason, it does matter who we vote for. Even if our choices SUCK.

[-] 3 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

Just 'cause you say you're not, doesn't mean that you aren't, even if you are profane....'HYPOCRITE' that is.

Thanks for your explanation, even if it is nonsensical.

I suppose that you want us all to sign onto your vehement stupid denunciation of Brand. and then vote for Democrats who have a long history of screwing us?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

what you say is true about elections but it shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the history of class struggle. think of all the great achievements - the abolishing of slavery, the 8 hour day, womens rights, civil rights - voting was not what got the job done - you must agree no? as to poor politicians again you are not thinking clearly - you show the same problem in attacking RB. hitler was not a rich man but roosevelt was. would you vote for hitler? shouldn't we vote for the person who has our interests at heart regardless and will work for us. his personal wealth should not be a factor in any way? bill clinton came to office relatively poor and look at the shit he did. he set the stage for your predicted financial crash.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

based on your response i can only assume that you realize the logic of your position is very weak. if you do not want to engage just say so - if you do you need to explain your position. seems you are saying that 10 million is some sort of cut off in your mind. why - and do you know how much chris hedges (your man right) is worth. can you answer some of my questions or will you continue to write nonsense in caps - like that makes a difference

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

I've explained my position in explicit, logical, economical, and PROVEN detail literally thousands of times all over the web and talk radio. I was doing so two years before the Great Recession hit and long before OWS was even a thought. I've done so many times on this site.

Lock yourself in a room with a few friends, play the game of Monopoly a few dozen times and watch what happens EVERY SINGLE TIME as one player takes a giant lead over the others. Then read the Russell Brand interview out loud and play again keeping in mind that the game of Monopoly was developed to simulate the actual principles of economics. Principles which remain true to this day.

If that doesn't work, then consider the following quote: "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it may eventually threaten the stability of Democratic Capitalism itself." -Allen Greenspan testifying before Congress in the spring of 2005.

Did you catch that date? THE SPRING OF 2005. And before you make another stupid assumption, NO, I am not promoting Greenspan. I'm simply pointing out that his prediction has in fact come true.

If that doesn't work, then read the recent CBO report in which the non-partisan government agency FINALLY admits that government stimulus will be necessary, get this and get it good, FOREVER, in large part, you may want to empty your bladder and have a seat before reading on.

You ready? Good! THE HIGH CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH.

Russell Brand, one man, a FALSE HERO HYPOCRITE PIG worth $20,000,000 and counting.

If that doesn't work, then spill a bag of marbles on the floor and figure it out.

If that doesn't work, then move to California and get a job shoveling crap into the faces of morons. Otherwise known as promoting celebrity pigs.

What in holy God damn hell would lead you to believe that I'm a fan of the wealth concentrating hypocrite false hero pig Chris Hedges?

I've never made an exception and I never will.

Next.

Update: Yes, I can easily explain my position regarding deca-millionaires. 

The richest 1% already own 40% or more of all privately held US wealth. This is more than twice the share they held 40 years ago when America still had a strong middle class. On average, individuals within the richest 1% are worth about $16,000,000. The lowest ranking members are worth around $9,000,000 each. 

The concentration just below the 1% is high as well. Much higher than it was 40 years ago. High enough to leave the bottom 90% of Americans with less than 20% of all privately held US wealth. As a direct result, they are not strong enough as a group to sustain their share of the US economy without going further into debt.

It's an absolute deal breaker.

The rich are too rich period.

No exceptions for deca-millionaire celebrities.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

chris hedges - oh sorry - i confused you with the other idiot banging the same drum. talk radio eh? figures. you have explained absolutely zero. quote the maestro why? in case you did not realize rb is not making decisions on how our society works - those are the ones we need to go after. don't you agree? so can you explain why 10 million is a cut off - how much do you have - more than me? can you give me a list of those i should listen to??

[-] 2 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

OK, let's see if I can understand your....errr. 'logic'. You do not want us to listen to Russell Brand becuase he is a wealthy celebrity EVEN if he speaks very well for the plight that we are in. Right??

You do not like Mr Brand, at all as evident by you saying that, he "Masquerades as a champion of 'equality' and the defender of the planet in part by encouraging the masses not to vote." Then you have went on to call him a "disgusting false hero hypocrite pig." - my boldface. WOW! That's not nice man. BTW, have you ever called Obama that for dropping all those drone bombs all over the place, OR have YOU ever gotten that pissed at anyone who was really trying & succeeding in screwing you?! Just wondering.

I'm not saying that you are here to see that all of Occupy vote for Democrats to reach salvation, BUT in promoting voting, and/or suppporting Dems while harshly denigrating Brand, YOU have succeeded in doing just that. Coincidence?? laughing

So in summation....let's see, you want to turn this into a voting revolution figuring that we can achieve sytemic change by voting for more Democrats, AND the biggie is... 'we should not listen to wealthy celebrities,' but it's OK to listen to wealthy malfeasant reps.

Tell me SMC, should we vote for representatives who for the first time in history have more millionaires amongst their ranks than ever before? Should we vote for Obama who is worth over 10 million, or how 'bout the 15 reps who are worh more than 20 million, several of them....tons more than that!

Should we vote for the 100 Senators who gave carte blanche support to Israel?

Should we vote for any of the Dems or Repubs who take huge wads of money from corporate and Banking interests....well should we SMC??

Should we vote for any...errr lawmakers (lol) who are allowed by law to conduct and benefit from insider trading, while the rest of us would go to prison for that?

Should we vote for anyone who clearly has a long history of putting corporate and bankimg interests long before our's.

Can you spell HYPOCRITE, SMC? Try practicing the next time you shave.

BTW can we count on you for another Ebola thread soon?

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

I've addressed your point several times already.

Again, both parties are horribly corrupt. But one has a long history of doing even more favors for the rich thereby helping to concentrate even more wealth than the other.

We don't have a 'no corruption' party here in America. Therefore, we should always vote for the lesser evil. Not to promote filthy rich and corrupt politician pigs from any party but to prevent the GREATER evil from taking more power.

Newsflash: Even if 100% of the people were to take RBs ridiculous advice and give up voting entirely, filthy rich and corrupt politicians would STILL take office. The difference would be that they would quickly achieve levels of wealth, power, and corruption never seen before even in America.

Yes.

[-] 5 points by spinoza34 (400) 2 years ago

OK, I think I got it now. You do NOT want us to listen to Russell Brand, despite him speaking very eloquently for us, and against corruption in particular, right? And

And YOU want us to vote for rich people who got rich in part by setting up a rigged system which they benefit greatly from...??

And YOU want us to vote for these same dudes even though that they take billions of dollars from corportations and banks, and protect and advance their interests..

Did I get it? Do you think that you are logical?

By YOU advocating that we vote for "the lesser evil," in effect you are saying, 'Let's keep doing the same thing that we have been doing, and hope for a different outcome.'

How long have you been in the DNC?

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

No you don't have it. Let's go over this again from the beginning.

This makes Russell Brand a disgusting false hero hypocrite pig. NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

The wealth gap between the richest Americans and the typical family more than doubled over the past 50 years.

In 1962, the top 1% had 125 times the net worth of the median household. That shot up to 288 times by 2010, according to a new report by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

Are you better off?

That trend is happening for two reasons: Not only are the rich getting richer, but the middle class is also getting poorer.

Most Americans below the upper echelon have suffered a decline in wealth in recent decades. The median household saw its net worth drop to $57,000 in 2010, down from $73,000 in 1983. It would have been $119,000 had wealth grown equally across households.

The top 1%, on the other hand, saw their average wealth grow to $16.4 million, up from $9.6 million in 1983. This is due in large part to the growing income inequality divide, as well as the sharp rise in value of stocks over the period.

Russell Brand, currently worth $20,000,000 and counting.

This also makes Russell Brand a disgusting false hero hypocrite pig.

https://www.accountancylive.com/bank-basher-russell-brand-raises-film-finance-city

Russell Brand also owns at least one 4800+ square foot mansion that I know of, at least two gas guzzling exotic cars that I know of, has been known to rent a Lamborghini, and travels extensively for unnecessary business and pleasure.

Russell Brand was briefly married to hundred-millionaire Katy Perry and was until very recently, involved with Jemima Khan, the daughter of a billionaire tycoon. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2556756/Russell-Brand-takes-control-luggage-jets-romantic-break-girlfriend-Jemima-Khan.html

Now, while promoting a new book and movie, Russell Brand masquerades as a champion of 'equality' and defender of the planet in part, by encouraging the masses not to vote.

Meanwhile Russell Brand continues to concentrate wealth and jet set this mostly poor but beautiful and unfortunately, warming world.

This will be confirmed in a year or so when the reports of Russell Brand's net worth are updated.

The very concept of extreme personal wealth is a self-centered, shallow, and immoral pursuit. A growing plague on society. It corrupts everything. It intoxicates everyone. In addition, wealth concentration has been thoroughly proven to cause economic instability.

Those who disregard the harm done by wealth concentration can not be trusted. We should stick to the 1% mantra making no exceptions for anyone. 43% of privately held financial wealth is too much for a single percentile and $20,000,000 in total wealth is too much for one man.

Show me a celebrity who sets themselves apart by SETTING a notable example by VOLUNTARILY steping down to the lower ranks of the 1% and I'll show you an exception to the rule.

The 'problem' is everything and everyone that contribute to the obscene concentration of wealth.

This includes the masses who are at least 1/2 responsible for the obscene concentration of wealth they now live under. So far, they have given Russell Brand enough to leave him with a $20,000,000 fortune even after taxes and expenses. This is just one example of many which contribute to the problem.

The global depression will come regardless of who we vote for. But it will come sooner and more severe with more conservatives in power.

Russell Brand is encouraging a large group made up primarily of centrists and liberals not to vote. This aids conservatives who have a long history of doing even more favors for the rich thereby concentrating even more wealth than Democrats.

I will not support RB's 'don't vote' campaign and I will not make excuses for multi-deca-millionaires.

[-] 3 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

The world is not all black&white.Good luck with separating well heeled,rich and wealthy individuals from their money.They will fight like hell against confiscatory taxation or outright seizure of wealth.Isn't it a better idea to divide the well heeled and rich from the wealthy and ally with them against the wealthy mega millionaires and billionaires? The .01% and the ,001% need to brought down first.Your approach is what? "Kill some Folks?" BTW,anybody who was planning to vote and then doesn't because RB said not to is so stupid they probably have about as much business in a polling place as a dog has in Sunday school.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

first of all you seem to know much too much about RB and his personal life. a bit too involved in gossip seems to me. more importantly the person is not the problem here - the system is to blame. that much is obvious to anyone with a brain - would that be you? you want to blame those with money and no power and also those with no money and obviously no power. you are ignoring those who make the rules - the power elite as c wright mills called them. RB is for sure not part of that group. in that sense YOU are part of the problem here - distracting people from the real source of the concentration of wealth. instead of your silly rants about RB why not point out how this obscene concentration of wealth has developed and who helped to make that happen. you might start with the reagan 80"s but i would go back farther if i were you - to the era of carter and beyond. depends if you want to focus on those in elected office who facilitated this state of affairs (like the great lefty clinton) or those behind the scenes. so i have given you some help here but i doubt you will take up the challenge. that would take too much time and you would not be able to do your research into the lives of the kardashians etc. now there is a good idea - why not rail at kim and beyonce or jordan and tiger. those who take much more money than RB and have NOTHING to say! those who create the distractions so that the power elite can have their way with us. no no - instead you go after someone who has a celebrity and uses it to educate the masses. someone who is savaged and hated by the power elite. and you - you dope you pile on. just what the wealthy would want you to do - quisling!

[-] 2 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 2 years ago

''Russell Brand on Revolution, Fighting Inequality, Addiction, Militarized Policing and Noam Chomsky'' - in conversation with Amy Goodman (Video) :

I have a lot of time for Russell Brand these days having once considered him just another narcissistic, celebrity buffoon. These days I follow him on https://twitter.com/hashtag/RussellBrand?src=hash and https://twitter.com/rustyrockets Timely and nice Forum-Post flip. Thanx. + Solidarity to u, yours & RB.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 years ago

Pretty much sums it all up. Voting is such a minor aspect of running a community, but we view it as the end all and be all.

They promote it as such because if they can control that tiny little aspect of our lives, they know we value it so highly the chances of us getting involved or expanding our minds behind it is almost non existent.

Imagine a system where politicians no longer exist, and it is up to the people to create the cabinets and orgs that manage the basics such as roads, defense, water, etc. Our communities would be a lot more open, honest and well off.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

imagine! well maybe we should start with a first step - what would that look like?

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 years ago

Honestly, I have no idea. I think OWS was a great start, but as far as what the next one looks like, I have no idea. Maybe this is what it is, just a slow awakening of people?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

let's get money out of politics - now exactly how we do that is another question

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

I'll acknowledge that Russel Brand isn't toing the usual celebrity pig line. He actually made reference not only to the 'broken system' (too easy, no risk) but to 'massive economic disparity'. 

He touched on the actual issue instead of dancing his way around it. 

But isn't this the same Russel Brand who either dated or pretended to date Jennifer Aniston?  Why would someone concerned about 'massive economic disparity' either date or pretend to date, thereby helping to promote, another celebrity already worth well over a hundred million dollars (now it's $130 million and counting.).

Sorry, Russel Brand can't be taken seriously on the issue of 'economic disparity' because of total hypocrisy. Or at the very least because of whatever poor judgement and disconnect allows him to excuse personal concentrations of $20 million to $130 million.

RB is just one of many rich 1% hypocrites who have recently tried to raise the bar of 'economic disparity' high enough to excuse all but a tiny fraction of a percentile. 

Meanwhile, the wealth continues to concentrate even below his standard causing more government corruption, more economic instability, more actual hardship, more social strife, more misery, and more death.

I've never been against the concept of upward mobility and I never will be. But too much is too much. The line must be drawn somewhere. I'm referring not only to wealth and buying power but also to food, land, energy (depending on the source), square footage (for environmental reasons), ect. 

When some have too much others will have too little. This will remain true until our planet turns into a giant cupcake.

$20,000,000 and counting is too much.

By the way, Russel Brand is currently promoting at least one new book that I know of and a new show (I just checked on a hunch). Gee what a shock.

I know that I'm not popular here anymore. In part, because I refuse to excuse the masses for their colossal ignorance, irresponsible spending habits, gluttony, prescription drug abuse, ect but I also find it more and more frustrating that even most OWS members, those who should know better, absolutely refuse to draw or enforce the line thereby watering down the 1% mantra.  

Meanwhile, the wealth continues to concentrate, our leaders become even more corrupt, the masses become even more intoxicated, the global depression draws near and the best chance we ever had to make a difference fades away.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

Russell Brand is giving all of the proceeds from "Revolution" away, to what he does not necessarily consider charity, because he loathes charity. He will give it away in a way that empowers the people he gives it to, according to him:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/russell-brand-occupies-wall-street-and-calls-for-revolution-again-9798218.html

"He is promoting his latest book, entitled Revolution, out on 23 October, of which proceeds "will go to creating social enterprises that are not for profit" and that "represent an alternative to some of the systems that we currently labour under".

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/11/russell-brand-revolution-alienation-despair

"He received a six-figure advance for Revolution, but insists he won’t be keeping it. “I’m going to get a property in east London and set up a coffee and juice bar to be run by people in recovery from addiction.” So he’s going to give away his money? “No. I’m no longer interested in making money. And the money I get, I’m going to use for good. We need systemic change, not charity. I won’t be in charge. They’ll vote for how they want to run it.”

I think you are right about a lot of celebrities, but I think you are wrong about Russell Brand.

[-] 6 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

It's easy to tell who is controlled opposition nowadays.Any person who fails to call for a full and complete investigation of the events which occurred on 9/11/01 or who refuses to say anything at all on the subject is controlled opposition.Lots of people-including Russel Brand-worship and glorify neurolinguistic programmer Noam Chomsky.He consistently berates and mocks anyone who wants an impartial investigation by a civilian commission with subpoena power of the events which occurred on 9/11/01.Russell Brand has been mocked and vilified for questioning the "official story." The Truth about 9/11 is actually so threatening that even the deepest cover gatekeepers,while savagely critical of Israeli slaughters and warmongering,are NOT permitted to speak about 9/11 except to mock and deride people who want to know the truth.So Russell Brand might actually be legit.He does appear to have been blacklisted by Hollywood.The guy has the right to make a living.If he wants to use part of his money to start co ops,good for him.He's a good writer and his public appearances are crowd pleasers,evidently.He should not be described as a worthless bloodsucker like the Kardassians or a Super Prostitute like Taylor Swift or even an overpaid Degenerate like Bono et.al.-IMHO.Not everybody who makes a living by writing books and doing stand up comedy or giving speeches is part of celebrity scum culture.Russell Brand came from a working class background and apparently he is alarmed by the plight of his family and friends that he left behind.As well he might be-things are going from bad to worse,on track for Intolerable.Maybe he thinks all the Riches are Doomed-LOL!

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

All big celebrities give to charity. Aside from a few very rare exceptions, NONE of which have been acknowledged here, they only give when they are promoting new products. It's a calculated strategy resulting in a dumber world but the bottom line is far more profound.

The world's wealth is far too concentrated EVEN AFTER you account for what the rich 'give back'. It's getting worse EVEN AFTER you account for what the rich 'give back'. The global economy is becoming unstable EVEN AFTER you account for what the rich 'give back'. Three quarters of the world's people live in poverty EVEN AFTER you account for what the rich 'give back'.

The rules of math, laws of physics, and fundamentals of economics which effect virtually all people worldwide regardless of what system they live under are not going to change no matter how many celebrities and other rich pigs claim to care or have the answers.

The bottom line is absolute.

When some have too much, others will have too little.

I don't care how much the rich 'give back'.

I care how much they keep.

$20,000,000 for one man is too much. Russel Brand is not a god. He is a celebrity.

By the way, he'll also be promoting himself and saving millions over the cost of traditional advertising for as long as people know that he is behind the 'coffee and juice bar' or whatever else he and his agents plan to set up and formally announce in the name of 'humanity'. Jolie and Pitt pulled the same crap, got away with it for years, and got richer by tens of millions as a direct result. http://thebabymoneyhasbeenspent.blogspot.com/

I've had it with false heroes, their fake humanitarian BS, their PROFOUND hypocrisy, and their own excuses for being filthy rich.

Show me a celebrity who voluntarily reduces their personal concentration of wealth and voluntarily steps down to the lower rankings of the 1% and I'll show you an exception to the rule. Someone who truly cares about 'massive economic disparity'. Otherwise, I'll show you yet another false hero hypocrite pig.

$20,000,000 for one man is too much.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

Like I've said before, I agree with you about most celebrities, but Russell Brand truly speaks truth to power in a way that I have not seen any other celebrity do it. I think he is an exception and I think his heart is truly in the right place.

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

I also feel deeply suspicious of Russell Brand.If he really is that rich-and there's no reason to doubt it-whiskeytangofoxtrot.I think it's possible Brand thinks there might be some kind of populist Upheaval and he's trying to frontrun it-as in-"Hey,guys-it's me your Buddy Russell Brand-remember how I was on your side and did this&that to try to help out? You really don't want to deal with me in a harsh way and take away my millions or the millions of my Friends! We are the Cool Rich People who have always been on your side!" Also unsettling is the Rumor that Russell Brand's GF is connected to the Rothchild Family of Oligarchs and belongs to the Global.001%.That would really be odd,if true.There is something about the guy that doesn't seem quite authentic.Could be that he is worth all those millions yet cultivates a decidedly downmarket image.I do agree that all of these characters have way too much money.I don't have any clue how to separate them from it other than taking all but 1% of their loot by taxation.What rich politician would champion an idea like that?

[-] 4 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 2 years ago

''Demanding the Impossible : Russell Brand's Wrongs'', by Justin Schlosberg :

From which I excerpt and abridge :


'It's easy to criticise Russell Brand's take on Revolution. With his half-smiling, half-sneering face donning the pages and screens reserved for the liberal intellegentsia - from Newsnight to the New Statesman - he has become target practice for just about anyone looking to shoot down a celebrity who dares to think and speak outside of their entertainment box.

''Of course, Brand's brand of revolution is wrong in a number of ways, but not in the ways that most of his critics think. It's wrong because it disobeys the rules fashioned by agents and PR gurus which keep celebrities penned into a staid culture of mindless pap fed to tabloids, gossip magazines and reality TV shows. According to this logic, a venture into anything like radical politics for a mainstream celebrity is tantamount to career suicide (although not apparently in Brand's case). The law speaks loud and clear: charity work is good, intellectual questioning of the political and social order is a definite no-no.

''The reason why mainstream celebs fall over each other to be seen to endorse good causes might have something to do with the fact that philanthropy conforms to capitalist ideology. Social justice under capitalism means the rich being generous to the poor. Should the rich or the poor begin to question how or why the massive wealth gap between them has arisen and continues to widen...well, that's just being ungrateful.

''It was the radical Situationists in Paris, 1968 who chanted *"be realistic .. demand the impossible"*. If Brand had simply thrown his weight behind the Green Party rather than urge people not to vote, he would never have got close to engaging with those struggles with media power which, in some small way, have helped to make the impossible seem more real. For that, whatever we think of his comedy or his politics, and for all his mocking and derisory critics in the liberal media, he gets the last laugh.''

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now I am not pretending to know RB's mind totally and I do consider myself a sceptic of celebrity - but nevertheless I have heard RB talk and know that he's putting his money where his mouth is & is saying things seldom heard on USUK MSM & for that, I'm grateful. Don't know about his GF tho' so I'll have to look into that to see if The 0.01% have co-opted him via his loins, in order to 'Recuperate him back into The Spectacle' ('Situationist' terms). The 99% need their voices to be heard. RB was once one of them and hasn't forgotten that ... possibly and if he winds up and upsets all those Conservative, Reactionary, Libertarian - USUK MSM gatekeepers ... then I'm all for it as there's a General Election in the UK in '15.

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

I think if you listen to the words that Russell Brand speaks you can see that he speaks for the 99%. I'm not sure he can control how rich or famous he has become. But, I'll say this, he chooses to spend his time trying, at least trying. to make revolutionary change to improve the lives of the 99%. He speaks truth to power and I can't really think of any other celebrity that does that in the way that he does. So, I'm in. I'll take Russell Brand and the exposure he can give to the issues that matter to me.

[-] 4 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

I have been a subscriber to the Trews since shortly after it started.I really enjoy the series alot.To me he seems sincere,and all the clowning around can't hide the fact that Russell Brand has an uncommonly sharp intellect.I would even go so far as saying that he is certainly among the most intelligent people I can name right now.Stillmodest urges us to dismiss him due to the fact that he owns a considerable fortune and is therefore not to be trusted.I am not so sure that is a sound approach-but Stillmodest is raising valid points,once you disregard epithets and inaccuracies.What the guy is doing is absolutely unheard of-advocating loudly for Anarcho-syndicalism? Really? I've never seen anything like it.There is no doubt he will not be having lunch in Hollywood ever again.He has a fortune.Is it reasonable to demand that he divest himself of it before speaking about political matters? BTW,this very issue was debated heavily in Zucotti Park in 2011.I disagree with Stillmod on the issue of wealthy individuals investing in worker's cooperatives.It isn't charity.FWIW,if Russell Brand is worth 20 million as Stillmod says,he is not considered an Ultra High Net Worth Individual.A fortune of 40 million is required to make the Cut,LOL!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22777) 2 years ago

Well said, trashyharry. I've never seen anything like Russell Brand either. He is one intelligent guy who not only understand the issues of the 99% but who seems to care on a visceral level.

We're not exactly going to be having an "American Cultural Revolution" here. (I am referring to something like the Chinese Cultural Revolution). So, throwing away all rich people and expecting them to give up all of their wealth is unrealistic. Expecting them to share so that everyone has enough and to stand up for all people, the way Russell Brand does, however, is not unrealistic. And, he is proving that it is possible.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

"those that put out the people's eyes reproach them for their blindness!" not sure why you would feel the need to beat up on russell - he seems to be on our side - what would you have him do? give up all his money - a mea culpa for his drug addicted behavior? maybe this type of thing is why you are not popular here anymore - that implies you once were - i have no opinion on any of that.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

I would have him concentrate far less than $20,000,000. It's too much period. Total hypocrisy.

I was every bit as harsh on celebrity pigs back in 2011 when I was extremely popular here. My position has not changed one little bit.

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Disengaged Petulance can be a fun and profitable occupation. Tories and Whigs still really do exist. And awe the wisdom of youth!