Thursday, October 24, 2013

Who'd have thought ...?

That when the revolution came it would have the comedian Russell Brand as its spokesman?



12 comments:

  1. Thanks for posting that, I hadn't seen it. Do you know what magazine he is editing?

    Mr Brand does seem very angry all of a sudden and he is an eloquent chap but is it a fad or a life long commitment. I'll wait for his first revolutionary act and then start to form a judgement.

    Mr Orlov also seems to have only just factored in planetary environmental destruction into his thinking. While The Archdruid points out that nuclear power stations will never be cleaned up and will generate festering dead zones around them in future. I suspect he is right. Its hard to feel optimistic for our descendants at the moment but some of them will squeeze through the evolutionary keyhole that will be coming up and all I can find to say is teach your children well and hope they and theirs are the ones getting through.

    Talking about matters nuclear, the key question for Whitehall coming out of a possible vote for Scots independence next year is where to base Trident submarines. Salmond says he will boot them out and not permit a "sovereign base". There is nowhere in England for them, as apparently Devonport, even nearer to you than the Chinese nuclear reactors to be built at Hinckley, has too many people nearby. Apparently Falmouth was the English option when Faslane was originally developed, so watch out, though it too is now apparently too developed and high population to risk a new nuclear base. Other options being looked at for a base are the Carolinas in the US and Brittany, France. Completely laughable for an "independent deterrent".

    The obvious solution, scrapping them, is not high up the agenda, yet. Wonder what Mr Brand can do about that, they are after all the symbol of our elites continuing pretensions to "punch above our weight".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what Brand's magazine is - I'm sure a quick internet search will reveal all ...

      The thing is with Brand, imo, is that he's a genuine wild card. He is quick witted, intelligent and doesn't give a monkey's about upsetting the apple cart of convention. Witness his recent expulsion from the GQ awards for pointing out to the audience that the sponsors (Hugo Boss) built their wealth on the back of the Nazis.

      What revolutionary acts can we expect? Who knows ... maybe he'll fizzle out, but his message has been received loud and clear. The Guardian's Nafeez Ahmed has written a good article on the topic:

      http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-25/comedian-russell-brand-takes-on-the-crisis-of-civilisation-but-what-now

      As for Orlov et al ... he seemed to be having a bad day when he wrote that. I can only hope that he is wrong. Nevertheless for JMG to say that there will be festering dead zones around abandoned nuclear facilities (which, to be fair, he's been saying all along) the only question that seems relevant is 'how big will these zones be?' JMG seems to be the master of saying 'there will be no apocalypse' and then going on to describe situations that sound apocalyptic to most.

      With almost 500 nuclear reactors worldwide, even if the dead zones were relatively small, that's a heck of a lot of the planet off limits, assuming they all went.

      Still, anything can happen. Another Fukushima or three and we might develop the intelligence to decommission all nuclear power while we still can. Who knows, perhaps some country would be selected as the ultimate dump site for all nuclear waste, in other words, cutting our losses.

      I don't know which country or region that would be, but I'm thinking that Antarctica would be a popular choice.

      Delete
  2. Being across the pond I know who Russell is from a movie he's been in and he's also been in our media here and there. I don't know the suit. My opinion is based only on what I see in this video since I don't really know either.

    The suit is attacking the man (ad hominem) and not dealing with any issues Brand mentions as if Brand is not of a class entitled to have a political opinion. People should vote but if all candidates are devils what you gonna do? It would be a good idea to verify that all choices are bad before one ignores an election so the suit has a bit of a point since Brand admits he's never voted. But I'll side with brand because he wants to try and bring public attention to important issues and he says what the issues are.

    In our most recent presidential election I did not see a candidate worth voting for. I figured I'd be able to do a better job than either Barack Obama or John McCain could so I voted for K-Dog. Me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paxman is a respected TV journo, famed for his aggressive interviewing style when talking to politicians - and probably regarded as something of a leftie by the political establishment. He's also quite a good historical author and has written a book about empires, so he should probably know better.

      So it's interesting to see that after a lifetime hounding lying politicians Paxman himself is now coming over as an establishment figure when he interviews younger upstarts.

      Delete
  3. I found it interesting that a day before you posted that video I essentially say the same thing at "Epiphany Now". http://emtmusings.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-suns-youth-rebellion.html

    Which I know you know. It just adds more realness to the situation for me, it's synchronistic.

    I think this revolution is going to happen because more and more people are waking up to what Russell is saying, and they are figuring it out on their own. It's hard not to figure it out on your own. All you have to do is put the damn iphone down and have a look around at Realandia. It's right in front of your eyes and pretty damn easy to see. At this point it would be like trying to figure out that the sun rises and then sets everyday from our perspective here on Earth.

    For my part, since I found a glitch to jump into with my family, it's pretty easy. I just have to be more afraid of what BAU is doing to our planet then what the agents of the Matrix may do to me, or my family. Because is it better for my boys to be alive on a planet where they are literally slaves in an Orwellian New World Bravely where they father has been neutered and forced onto fukitol so that he could continue slaving away in a system that is more than not worth caring about, but worthy of seething hatred IMO. We need to be angry about the fact that these silverspoon mother fuckers are fuckin' up our planet in the name of profit and BAU. They could still profit without destroying our home. But they're too busy drinkin' their martinis and watchin' their bank accounts grow larger by the day on the backs of us slaves to give a shit...and they're too stupid to care about the fact that their BAU is destroying THEIR home as well as ours.

    So are my boys better off with me neutered and on fukitol, checked out from their needs because they need money to live, or are they better with me psychologically healthy and home everyday trying to permaculture the planet up for them?

    I think the populace needs to just stop paying the governments of the world any attention. Like they did in Soviet Russia just before they collapsed. I don't vote either, and I only did so once when Ron Paul ran for president in 2008, because there was finally a candidate that was talking about actually changing things in an almost fundamental fashion, for better or worse, it would have been real change based on liberty. Didn't vote before then and won't vote ever again (not for anything in this paradigm).

    My goal now is to stay out of trouble with local law enforcement. Other then that, I'm doing what I see fit, which is permaculture. That is my plan now, for my boys, cause I see nothing else worth my time. We can't fix this busted paradigm, it's already got terminal cancer, we just have to hang in there long enough to let it die. So I'm trying to keep my family out of any kind of government line in the future. That means keeping them healthy and sheltered. Which means producing food and creating community to care about us when we're all down in the dumps due to social/political collapse.

    I applaud Russell. And that last 20 minutes was awesome. "I've taken the right, I don't need the right from you, I don't need the right from anybody, I've taken it." That is EXACTLY what I've done. My sentiments exactly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My sentiments exactly.

      I have only ever voted once, although it is mostly down to the fact that I was a rolling stone and you need a proper address to be able to vote. Although it shocked my fellow students at the time (yes, it was that long ago) I voted for the conservatives. The only reason I did so was because they were the only main party talking about the environment in the late 1980s/early 1990s - Labour were only talking about building more houses, digging out more oil etc etc. The Green Party weren't fielding a candidate, if memory serves, otherwise I would have voted for them.

      These days the Conservatives are all about destroying the environment as fast as possible. Just what are they conserving? They should be renamed the Destructionist Party.

      These days I vote in local elections, and when the national election comes along (next year?) I'll vote for Russell Grant.

      Delete
  4. Please don't vote for Russell Grant! Though I suppose a media astrologer could easily be better than the current bunch of goons; certainly couldn't do worse. But Russell Brand - well, bless his cotton socks for saying what we're all thinking & getting it out into the open with such panache.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doh (slaps forehead)! You never know - Russell Grant might have some interesting ideas that Russell Brand hasn't thought of!

      Delete
  5. This isn't Paxman interviewing Russell. It's a seduction of Paxman by Russell. The echo chamber is focused on Brand, but I found Paxman's performance much more interesting.

    Paxman is as establishment as they come. He's a check and a balance, a sorter of the wheat from the chaff. A 4th estate Tony Benn.

    At the start Paxman finds what he thinks is the weakness (i.e., not voting) and zeros in on it in his usual style, refusing all evasion or bluff. At some point though - Paxman being a fairly smart and savvy guy - he realises he is on the losing side. Brand is arguing from outside his paradigm. He abandons this angle and moves to find and hammer other points of weakness (this being his MO). But the attacks get weaker and weaker and Brand is able to talk freely, to lead the interview in effect, for longer and longer.

    Toward the end Paxman is almost visibly rooting for Brand, suppressing a smile (as opposed to a sneer), and almost, somehow, trying to accommodate himself to Brand's position.

    Note also Russell's constant personal flattery to Paxman (regarding beards, appearance etc.) and the attempt to connect emotionally regarding his grandmother.

    I had previously pigeon-holed Russell as smart-but-shallow, I'd now consider him someone-to-watch. I'm sure I'm not alone.

    What I think Brand missed is the efficiency argument. In his shoes I would argue that voting is less effective than non-voting from a conscience-salving perspective and as a tactic to deligitimise the system. I'd also argue that mockery/flippancy is the best way of undermining the undeservingly powerful. But he is demonstrably an intelligent person, so perhaps he has those points but chose not to say them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true. Paxamn is a liberal and he is constantly berated by the right for being too tough on them - hence he must at least appear to be tough on lefties or anyone with an alternative philosophy to appear 'balanced'. I've been to a talk by him (years ago) and he comes across as very self effacing.

      But Russell Brand doesn't play by the rules. Amusing to see him zoning on on JP's new beard - much berated by the right wing press - disarming him easily. He goes for the kill with the grandmother thing ... so much so that anyone would think it is a setup ;-)

      Delete
  6. My impression was that Paxman was genuinely interested in any new ideas that Brand might have, but Brand didn't want to mention them. Time will tell as to whether he does actually have any ideas or could put a revolutionary agenda together.

    Not yet seen the guest editorial he is doing for the New Statesman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here it is ...

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

      Delete

I welcome comments that are relevant to the post and add to the debate about our current and future predicament. I'll try to reply to them all as time permits. You can post anonymously but I'm less likely to reply.