Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: sabertooth on October 26, 2013, 03:44:30 am
-
http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolution-last-night-1451318185?autoplay=1 (http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolution-last-night-1451318185?autoplay=1)
Strange times indeed when an actor and comedian calls out for world wide revolution. Although I am inspired by what he says, I am still skeptical. 100 years ago the Bolsheviks had a similar spiel and once the revolution was over, even bigger bastards took control than the ones who were thrown out.
Still he is right about many things, the time is now and we cant let the current political power structure set the agenda for the world of the future. The establishments politicians and their owners are not going to present the kind of alternatives that are needed to bring about the kind of changes that would benefit "We the People". We must take back the right to chose for ourselves what kind of world we want to live in, and take personal responsibility for the future we create.
Its the information age, anyone of us here is just as capable of being informed about the state of affairs in the world as anyone else. No longer should we allow decisions that effect everybody to be made behind closed doors by a small group of wealthy people, while the 99% are not allowed a seat at the table.
-
gosh, what a dynamic insanely smart guy that is. How well spoken, and am impressed how he kept his center in the midst of such an arrogant interviewer. I just hope for his sake, he wasn't on some drug, that that was his own energy. Otherwise he'll burn himself up. Check out the work that Kennedy is doing with taking down the coal giants and replacing them with solar, and wind power. I agree the time is now. I think it will take the form of an internet channel that informs and offers people daily choices and simple means to vote with their dollars.
-
Err, Russel Brand is not viewed too seriously by us Brits! l)
-
I don't think he is on Drugs, he is like a man possessed by ideological demons, the passion is real.
Err, Russel Brand is not viewed too seriously by us Brits! l)
Neither was Karl Marx, ;)
He is a loose cannon for sure, an extreme leftist, but one whose ideals may have mass appeal to the proletariat(or the 99% as he calls them).
-
I think he is an idiot.
Mass appeal to proletariat never worked long term. Chavez comes to mind. Huge appeal, not much substance.
-
Q: Russell Brand, is he a messiah or a bolshevik?
A: Both - a messiah for the Bolsheviks.
Err, Russel Brand is not viewed too seriously by us Brits! l)
I hope you're right. I'm already dissappointed that he generated as much popularity there and elsewhere as he has.
-
I hope you're right. I'm already dissappointed that he generated as much popularity there and elsewhere as he has.
He is viewed by most educated Brits as a pathetic joke. He sort of represents effeminate men of the metrosexual type. Plus he is vulgar and ill-spoken in the worst way.
-
He doesnt sound intelligent to me.
Blames the system, blames large corporations for his drug problems. Talks fast in a high level squeal and it's pretty hard to listen to.
He talks about heavily taxing corportions, that profits are bad. This guy is a millionaire.
-
I agree. He's like an ugly bearded lady with a flaky and frantic veghead poodle persona and an annoying nasally voice, arrogant, sneering, condescending, and crude manner. Which is why it's a disappointing sign of the times that he became a somewhat popular celebrity both in Britain and the US (apparently based at first on an awful comedy act that relies largely on insulting people and saying controversial things and his usual nauseating behavior), and apparently bedded many women, if he is to be believed.
He is a symbol of much of what currently ails modern society. The best I can say for him is that his ex-wife Katy Perry acted so badly after their divorce that he seemed almost reasonable by comparison, though at least she is attractive.
I can't stand the trend of the past 10 years or so for celebrities to offer their advice to the world on subjects they know little about, and most of the masses listen to them because they are celebrities, rather than people who have proven that something works.
Welcome to our new elite of celebrity trash - Russell Brand, Katy Perry, Paris Hilton, Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, Madonna, Rihanna, Charlie Sheen, Kim Kardashian, Snooki, ... . People famous and acclaimed largely for acting like scum. Celebrity dipshits. >: ;D
Geez, Brand even has an insane-Messiah image and a "Messiah Complex" shtick:
(http://newcastlecityhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/russell_brand.jpg)
I'm hoping this signals his shark-jumping peak and coming decline back into obscurity.
-
I am wary of him too, but I don't think slandering him for who he is without directly awsering the points he raises intellegently adresses the problems of our times .
I would like to address the message and not the messiah (we all fall short of the glory after all)
He is right about many things. Exspecially about people bing complicit with a system that exploits the poor. The 2% to 10% which represent the middle and upper working class are guilty of going along blindly with the system and benefit greatly by the exploytation of the rest of humanity.
The working poor in the first world along with the entire third world are not a part of the political power structure, so why should they continue to participate in democracy and capitalism?
His prognosis of the problems are fairly accurate, and its disturbing that more people arnt concerned about the issues he brings up, Though I must confess his solutions are very suspect.
I agree with van that through internet channels "We the People" can offer up the real alternatives and choices that could change the world into an egalitarian system governed by reason and consensus.
-
Slander is a false accusation. They are my opinons, not so-called "slander."
He is right about many things. Exspecially about people bing complicit with a system that exploits the poor. The 2% to 10% which represent the middle and upper working class are guilty of going along blindly with the system and benefit greatly by the exploytation of the rest of humanity.
The working poor in the first world along with the entire third world are not a part of the political power structure, so why should they continue to participate in democracy and capitalism?
His prognosis of the problems are fairly accurate, and its disturbing that more people arnt concerned about the issues he brings up, Though I must confess his solutions are very suspect.
All of that confirms what I said about a messiah for the Bolsheviks, as does the call to "change the world into an egalitarian system." Russell Brand's message so far is old Bolshevism in fancy new dress.
It's nothing that the Bolsheviks haven't said before:
Lenin’s state was to be a Bolshevik state supported by workers and peasants. ...
Each type of class society will have its own political history, of course, but Marxism recognizes this as the politics of definite social formations, which will, however, come to an end with the abolition of classes, the last political revolution in the general social developmental process. Quite apart from its objective possibility or impossibility, the Bolshevik regime had no intention to abolish the wage system and was therefore not engaged in furthering a social revolution in the Marxian sense. It was satisfied with the abolition of private control over the accumulation of capital, on the assumption that this would suffice to proceed to a consciously planned economy and, eventually, to a more egalitarian system of distribution.
- Paul Mattick (Marxist political writer and social revolutionary), "Reform or Revolution,"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1983/reform/ch06.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1983/reform/ch06.htm)
"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan"
- The Beatles
-
Your trifling over semantics now, and are still ignoring the real issues.
Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new.
Galileo Galilei
It may not be Slander, but unless you know exactly where he came from or know the people he is speaking for, then I do think there is a bit of pretence and prejudice in some of your judgement. There are under-served members of society who have suffered greatly due to injustice. Many people like myself grew up as a witness to "it"and can see exactly where he is coming from and I salute him and his ill mannered "devil does care" assaults upon the preestitutes and media whores,
Now he may just be pandering to the downtrodden for personal gain, playing a role, acting out a shtick, then so be it , bless it be. To speak with the passion of resistance shared by all those who suffer from the messiah complex is something I personally admire.
I wont let anyone just stereotype everyone who shares a belief of social, political and economic equality, without explaining your views a little more clearly. There has to be something he said in the interview that you can agree with.
-
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
John Lennon
-
Your trifling over semantics now, and are still ignoring the real issues.
Nonsense.
It may not be Slander
Correct.
Brand would probably be horrified by your videos and critique you more harshly than I did him, so it's an odd choice of hero to defend.
but unless you know exactly where he came from or know the people he is speaking for
Unless they say so, he doesn't speak for "the under-served members of society who suffered injustice." That's an arrogant presumption by Brand and far too many in the leftist elite.
There has to be something he said in the interview that you can agree with.
You started out this thread with a question, but if you're only interested in what people agree with Brand on, then it seems like you already had your answer in mind.
You're the one saying nice things about Brand's "revolution" and asking for agreement with it, so it's your case to make if you wish. Can you name a single new or rarely discussed idea you support that Brand presented in his article or interview? Can you name a single new or different action that you are going to take as a result? If you do, then I'll respond. So far I don't see much substance to respond to.
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
John Lennon
Now you're singing my tune! :D
-
Its obvious you are not going to address the questions raised by Brand, and are using straw man tactics to defer from the points he raises, which are important and need to be addresses. Sure he is an Ass hole, but so was John Lennon in many respects, and if he were alive today there is no doubt he would be taking sides with Brand.
John Lennon 1969 Interview I Met the Walrus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfBpVn0ESqA#)
Without writing a complete manifesto I will start out by saying
The solution as I see it is a return to more Ancient Athenian Democracy, where everyone views were able to get a public hearing. There is a huge difference in whats going on now than in the times of the Bolshevik revolution. Today the peasants have the power of the WEB, and will not be so easily swept under an iron curtain. I cant believe that everyone else cant see that there is a huge shift towards more tribal ways of sorting out public affairs. There is a real chance this time around for individuals of all classes and races to participate in the process. Members of a free an open society like Me and Phil can wax philosophical and discuss openly and defend ardently our differing views. Then through the discourse others will be inspired to participate and find the flaws in all of (Mine, Brands, Lennon's, and Phils) view points. This is how progress towards more peaceful and universally beneficial solutions should be made.
These discussions have to happen and the Bolshevist perspective has to be addressed or else there will be hell to pay( this is my own messianic prophecy) If there was an open discussion for all to witness between all those who wish to participate; the Brands, CEO, Royalty, Working man( white and blue collar), politicians, lawyers, builderburgs, and of course dont forget Meetoto. Then sustainable and beneficial solutions would emerge through the process that best represent the whole of humanity.
(You May say that I'm a Dreamer but Im not the only One)
-
Its obvious you are not going to address the questions raised by Brand, and are using straw man tactics
What straw man argument? I asked these two simple questions:
> Can you name a single new or rarely discussed idea you support that Brand presented in his article or interview?
> Can you name a single new or different action that you are going to take as a result?
Its obvious you are not going to address the questions raised by Brand, and are using straw man tactics
What straw man argument? I asked these two simple questions:
> Can you name a single new or rarely discussed idea you support that Brand presented in his article or interview?
> Can you name a single new or different action that you are going to take as a result?
Questions aren't arguments. Will you answer the questions or not? If you don't wish to, that's your choice, and any more discussion between us on Brand after that would then probably be pretty pointless.
There is one other odd occurance re: Brand that I'm curious about. Does anyone know why he posed in front of an image of the mass murderer Joseph Stalin during this past apology for one of his misbehaviors? The BBC article assumes he was "whitewashing" Stalin and some Youtube commenters assumed it was some sort of sick joke, but I'm not assuming anything. I haven't seen an explanation from Brand on it.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45191000/jpg/_45191166_brand_pa_466.jpg)
"The whitewashing of Stalin"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7719633.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7719633.stm)
Russell Brand apology statement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMxh-BnyKKs#)
Photoshop is a possibility, though if that were the case, one would think that Brand would have complained about that to the BBC by now.
And if anyone's interested, Richard Nikoley posted some similarly critical comments about Brand's Paxman interview here: http://freetheanimal.com/2013/10/russell-jeremy-paxman.html (http://freetheanimal.com/2013/10/russell-jeremy-paxman.html) Nikoley has praised Brand in the past where it was due, so it's not like he's gunning for Brand or any such thing.
-
Ok, Phil I was going to try not to write a manifesto, but if you want answers I will humor you some.
I can support many of his ideas, and they may not be new but within the new age in the minds of a new kind of person they can take on an entirely different meaning. I have no moral attachment or aversion to people like him, If he says something that is inspiring then I support it, and when he talks about climate change and socialist governments I oppose it.
At the end of the final judgment on the said revolutionary, there is a mixed up feeling.
I have no faith that revolution will set things to right, but change must occur, it always has, all I hope for is a kind of soft ball anarchy where no one wins total victory, and after all is all said and done we all can muddle through it without to many injuries.
I agree with this statement to answer your question>
"I don't get my authority from this preexisting paradigm which is quite narrow and only serves a few people, I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity."
Your second question is a little insulting>
As far as what actions I am taking, wtf. You still don't know me by now. Have you been following what I am tiring to do. My life is devoted to action. Working for the cause of real alternatives.
No we are not going to devise a system of global utopia on this forum, but we can get a few ideas out there and have a bit of a laugh!
We all must look elsewhere for alternatives.. We must even look beyond Russel Brand and the Brand new BS which is everywhere.
Whats happening is now in my opinion is business as usual. The extreme leftist are fighting out compromises with the extreme right over issues that both of them are wrong about, and the centrist are being forced to pick sides, so what ever New Deal comes out of the "back room" will just serve to uphold the status Quot. Considering the magnitude of ignorance and greed which is directing the process, and the power that is now being exercised over every aspect of human life, by governmental and corporate organizations, there is much cause for alarm, and there should be a call to action for any true Patriots among us.
A prime illustration of this is OBAMA CARE. The extremes on both sides are feverishly working for or against this monstrosity. Universal healthcare is the cornerstone of a soviet state. We are already in the midst of the Bolshevist take over, and just as 100 years ago, the socialist are being run by corrupt interest who know nothing about Health care at all and care nothing about improving the health of the nation . Our medical system has become a huge money racket that is banking on the fact that people are going to get sicker and sicker and therefor need more and more expensive medical treatments. All the while absolutely nothing will be done to correct the environmental causes which are responsible for all the sickness in the first place.
Why aren't they doing universal studies on the toxicity and deficiency of the millions upon millions of Americans whose medical conditions are a direct cause of environmental and dietary imbalances. If only a fraction of the money that will be wasted on universal sick care were to be invested in correcting the environmental factors responsible for the cause of most illness, then we could use the other several hundred billion dollars to work toward that Utopian dream.
This is a huge part of my message and so far we haven't been able to get it through the media filters, but I personally am going to give it my best and with help from others we can TARE DOWN this wall of ignorance and greed that are the real obstacles to the common good.
-
This is an interesting and balanced perspective on the Russle Brand interview.
An Open Letter to Russell Brand - Let's Start a Revolution! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltiviifnA_E#)
-
Here is the problem. Unless this gets addressed first it'll be business as usual. And, of course, term limits.
I saw these numbers being circulated by W. Buffet. Not sure how true this is.
Salary of retired US Presidents . . . . . . . . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members . . . . . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House . . . . . . . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders . . . . . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE
-
Your second question is a little insulting>
As far as what actions I am taking, wtf.
ST, that's not my second question. I'll spell it out in more detail to try to make it more understandable.
The first question was: "Can you name a single new or rarely discussed idea you support that Brand presented in his article or interview?" It seems your answer to this first question is no, which is also my impression. So we seem to agree on that and I do also agree that he's couching these old leftist ideas in new agey language and communicating them quite a bit via the Internet, both of which are somewhat recent phenomena, though he didn't originate them and many other folks use them both. I don't yet anything truly original or uncommon in his article or Paxman interview. Maybe it's elsewhere.
The second question, which was based on the first, and dependent on your answer to the first, is: "Can you name a single new or different action that you are going to take as a result" [of a new or rarely discussed idea that Brand presented in his article or interview--not one of your own ideas]?
Both questions were regarding Brand's ideas, not your own original ideas. Brand was the subject of the original question that was supposedly the topic of the thread, and it was he and his views that I asked the questions about and have been discussing all along, not you or your views. I hope that clears up the confusion.
-
Come off it buddy, the Brand interview was posted to start a much deeper discussion, not to get into a pissing match with you. I addressed your questions, I'm sorry if my short hand response wasn't made clear enough for you.
To Clarify
I found some of his words inspiring and the old leftest ideals couched in new terms have value to me personally, That particular quote I gave you at the beginning of the interview sparked my curiosity and I believe that it was a good message for him to get across to the TV News crowd.
If the masses of people hear what he has to say and get pissed off about it enough to begin seeking out their own alternatives then People like me and Stefan Molyneux will be able to reach out to the new seekers with a much broader message, and this is the process by which mass awaking can and will occur.
I think you are being prejudice, narrow minded, condescending and just plain cantankerous in this discussion. But I will defend to the death your right to be so.......
So anyway we are at an impasse it seems.... now I want to shift gears and use the interview along with our personal disagreements and misunderstandings to spring board into other ideas.
Phil.
Do you have anything to say about Stefan Molyneux take on the interview?
-
No worries, I'm not at all interested in a pissing match. I'm also not particularly interested in getting into a deep philosophical discussion, sorry (maybe someone else here or at Richard Nikoley's blog will take you up on that). Your question solicited our views on Brand and I gave my honest opinion, as did some others. They were just my opinions and were not meant as a philosophical treatise. That's all, nothing more. It was a nice opportunity to vent about one of my least favorite celebrities, for which I thank you. I'm frankly puzzled about why he's as popular as he is and basically agree with Tyler's and YS's assessments of him and his views, though I wouldn't go so far as to call him an idiot. At this point, I think I've had my fill of him. If I never see another Russell Brand interview, it will be too soon.
If I had known that my comments would be construed as anything else and misrepresented so negatively towards you, then I wouldn't have commented, as that was not what I was trying to do. They were no more directed to you or somehow a pissing match than Tyler's or YS's or Richard Nikoley's critical comments about Brand were. Nikoley doesn't even know you, so if it helps you understand that nothing I've said is about you, then think of my comments as coming from him, for his comments were rather similar, albeit milder, which is actually uncharacteristic for him ;D (and I also agree with Nikoley about the positive things he said about Brand), or from some stranger.
My critical comments were all about Brand, not you. You are not Russell Brand, so if they were condescending or cantankerous they would be so to Brand, not you. I haven't noticed anything particularly offputting in your own ideas in this thread. Any notion that anything critical I wrote was somehow directed at you or your ideas is a misunderstanding.
I hope that finally clears it up. If you take any of this somehow negatively or still believe that I was being prejudiced, narrow minded, etc., ..., then my true message is still not getting across and it's probably better that we drop the discussion.
I've tried to watch a few of Molyneux's videos in the past and couldn't sit through them all and no longer bother to click on them--not because of his views, but because I can't take his voice and speaking style. I find that it quickly wears on me, sorry. If you like, you could post the gist of whichever of his points you thought were salient. My guess is that I'll agree with them.
-
My critical comments were all about Brand, not you. You are not Russell Brand, so if they were condescending or cantankerous they would be so to Brand, not you. I haven't noticed anything particularly offputting in your own ideas in this thread. Any notion that anything critical I wrote was somehow directed at you or your ideas is a misunderstanding.
I hope that finally clears it up. If you take any of this somehow negatively or still believe that I was being prejudiced, narrow minded, etc., ..., then my true message is still not getting across and it's probably better that we drop the discussion.
This does clear things up, and I am at fault for not explaining exactly why I find the way Brand is being criticized a little narrow minded. It is due to my own lack of eloquence.
I feel that when people are automatically dismissive of a person like Brand without acknowledging the fact that there is substance to what he is saying, it shows a lack of compassion. In the Days of the Soviet Revolution, the upper crust was guilty of the same lack of compassion. People were starving and suffering in mass due to a system that would not listen to their crys, and the longer they were ignored the more susceptible they became to the radical ideology of people like Marx and Lenin, who at least seemed to care. Then of course the people were betrayed, Lenin was poisoned and the soviet state fell under the control of despots even worse than the Czars.
It is the role of us who are aware of the lessons of history to awaken the others so that when the New Marxist take on the NWO Authoritarian Systems in the struggle for power, "We the People" empowered by knowledge that is supported by experience, and not just blind ideology, will be able to put forth other options. In this way we will evolve past the need for ever increasing control and domination by centralized governing systems that attempt to lord over everyone.
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee........................... This may not be relevant, I just like that quote.......
What I want to convey is that many members of the "great intelligentsia" who snub their nose at people like Brand, and ignore the crys of suffering, all the while being isolated cozily in their ivory towers, think themselves so much holier than thou, but I disagree, because in my view they lack compassion. The man was Abused as a child and grew up surrounded by people who neglected him. Perhaps he is taking the wrong view of things and lashing out against the societal establishments which has ignored him and his early traumas in the same way that the Czars of Russia ignored the Peasants who lived wretchedly upon a diet of potato skins while they lived in absolute splendor.
What Stefan Was explaining and I wish you could stomach his voice long enough to listen, at least on this point, is that Brand was right on accessing the issues with the current system, but was wrong about the solution, because the kind of power needed to take back the power will only be corrupted and used against the people whom were supposed to be set free. It was an earnest attempt to educate Brand about the nature of power.
We need to take the discussion away from the confines of the old hat political critiques that focus on putting everyone's ideas into categories where they can be labeled narrowly and have boarders put upon. Let us view Brand as a Young Jedi Knight, like the young Anakin Shywalkerer, the force is strong with him, but there is still much fear which could very well lead to him falling to the dark side. Stefan is playing the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi and attempting to teach Young Brand to use the force wisely. Brand is still young... young messianic revolutionaries don't often hit their peak until their mid forties, when wisdom begins to fully mature. So we should be patient with some of his immaturity and encourage him in the same way Stefan is attempting to.
-
It's the message that resonates, to get stuck on the messenger is just being petty. It's important for mainstream folks to see that it is alright to be disappointed and in pain over what our current governmental systems are doing and to yearn and feel passionate about something truly different. To even start to give those who are only just discovering that this might be a source of the upset in much of their lifes some kind of context or language for that is always beneficial. To trivialize the fact that we are in deep doodoo because the messenger has some contradiction with lifestyle and message is silly. We all have that, deep down we do, that's the problem.
I think deep I everyone hearts we know what is wrong, what we are doing, living and participating in is only serving our suffering. At least its that dull ache of our times to know something isn't right. It's to be on this precipice and have the choice of jumping off courageously and proactively or to wait until we are pushed.
Those in government and industry thrive on fear and separation, of course their fearful minds will try and protect this failing system anyway they can, war, media, healthy and intelligence of citizens etc..all the while ignoring the degradation of what is the true sustenance of life, nature, environment, community, tradition and culture.
Those who are taking action and empowering themselves in their own lives and communities thrive and act on love and trust in the goodness of others who have also freed themselves of living in the oppressive and fearful mind space of the overarching global power structures and the graciousness of nature to provide true sustenance.
Anyhow I am surprised to see a gaggle of men react so pettily, calling him for is physical appearance, etc.... lol....Its kind of like how environmentalist were mocked for being hippies or how any group is marginalized for being idealistic.
-
Jessica,
Finally someone who understands
Thank you
-
ST and Jessica, I don't mean to seem insulting or dismissive of you folks (just of Brand--I consider public messiahs fair game :) ) and it’s not that I think that any discussion of politics and philosophy is unimportant, I just don't want to spend much more time or mental energy on Brand and his call for global revolution to produce an alleged socialist utopia. I am dismissive of BOTH the messenger AND the gist of the message.
I'm not saying that every word he ever uttered was wrong or any ridiculous extreme like that, nor do I seek to trivialize the existence of major problems in the world. I also don't know anyone who doesn't think there are massive problems in the world. I didn't learn anything from him that I didn't already know or hadn't heard countless times. I just agree with Stefan that the gist of Brand's solution is wrong, though Brand was so vague about it, much like the politicians he decries (and which enables some people to see in his message whatever they want to see), that it's difficult to even discuss his proposal in much depth anyway. The devil is in the details.
Another actor/comedian, Roseanne Barr, made a call for a similar revolution last year (except hers also included voting LOL) and I'm not sorry that I ignored her. For me, Brand rises to just the level of warranting some cathartic comment because I find him irritating and the media and his fans push him and his utopian dreams and attempts to shock or grab attention more than Barr, so that he's hard to avoid.
For some reason, I originally expected Brand to eventually say something funny or insightful, perhaps due to all the hype built up around him. So I unfortunately did give him a listen from time to time, but was mostly disappointed, including with his recent Paxman interview and article. You of course don't have to like that or agree with me.
Last I checked there was no law saying that everyone has to take Russell Brand or his notions seriously. According to Tyler, there are quite a lot of people who do not, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. Most people have already forgotten about Barr's call for revolution and I suspect that a year from now that many will have forgotten Brand's call.
If you want me to say something nice about a lefty vegetarian actor/comedian and his philosophy, ask me about Billy Connolly. My favorite thing that I’ve seen Brand write or say was a quote of Connolly. According to Brand, Eddie Izzard said he'd like to become a politician some day, Brand said he'd like to be a "spiritual orator” (which he is apparently currently working on :) ). Connolly replied: “I’d like to be a nuisance. I want to be a troublemaker, there in the gallery in parliament shouting RUBBISH and PROVE IT.” If Brand were giving his spiritual orations and claiming that his global socialist revolution was going to create a utopia and I happened to be attending, I'd want to be up there in the gallery with Connolly. :)
-
I hear you Phil, and respect your view.
Though I disagree with you about Rosanne Bar. She did place 5th in the presidential election, so that's proof that at least some people took her seriously.
I operate under the motto " live and learn from fools and from sages" and"Dream on"
I honestly listen to and try to appreciate what a number of vastly different spiritual orators/ wannabes have to say without placing limited judgement values on the person, then search my own soul for the voice that will help to tell what to make of it. I agree with your criticism of Brand and your criticism of a lot of other things we discuss, as I consider it from"your" point of view. I still value what he says and like him for my own personal reasons. He is right, if we want our rights we are going to have to take them. Now we can debate till kingdom come about what are the best ways to do so, and get nowhere.
It all boils down to ,"What you gonna do about it". There are ancient ideas about how people who accomplished great things had access to the Logos. It was an individuals voice that was connected to the greater world. Together out the communicative effort of all those who participated, the world would emerge and progress could be made. This great voice of human connectedness to and purpose in the world has been silenced and dominated by the least among us for long enough. It is up to those of us alive today who are able to reconnect to the Gaian mind and resurrect the human spirit, to take action.
It must be obvious I have fallen under the spell of the spiritual orators who march to a different tune altogether, and can no longer view the world in the same way.
Terence Mckenna -What you Gonna do about it? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGzYKTNC1k8#)
-
It all boils down to ,"What you gonna do about it".
Yup, and that was the main thing I found lacking in his interview and article--specifics about what he is gonna do about it and what he wants others to do. He made the excuse in the interview that there wasn't time, but he didn't spell it out much in the article either. Perhaps he knows that he would lose much of the support he has if he spelled it out too much. I've seen it time and again--a politician or revolutionary is vague at first and gets lots of support, with people reading into the hero what they want to see. Then he/she starts filling in the details and the support plummets.
I remember my own pro-life parents supporting Ross Perot for President early on when he was vague. Then he got more specific and came out more strongly pro-choice than either of the other two candidates and they dropped him like a hot potato. ;D
One of the problems that Brand mentioned--bankers' bonuses--is key and I do like to see that get airplay. My state's congressman support doing something on that. Senator Bernie Sanders is particularly outspoken on it. If there's a local march regarding it, I'd join it.
-
Part of his shtick regarding the messiah complex reminds me of the point you just made about the quality of being vuage.
Consider the messianic Icons like Muhammad, Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, Malcolm X...... non of us know them personally or very much about how they intended their actions to change the world, but you cant deny that their ideas and how other people carried them forth and twisted them for whatever purpose they desired, became the historical identity of these men, who in real life were most likely profoundly different than we could imagine.
You don't have to know what you are doing or have a specific plan to be a messiah, this is the message I receive from Brand. He is telling us on a level that most fail to see, a fundamental truth that we all possess the capability of being messiahs. There is no law saying that there can be only one. We are all children of God. But this idea upsets some people who think that you have to do something, or think in a certain way to become divine. To hell with that, I say lets infect the freak-en world with the messiah complex.
Your issue with people being vague regarding detailed plans of action reminds me of Alan watts description on the two types of people. Gooey and prickly. I think you are a prickly kind of guy and I am much more gooey, and this is the root of our different views.
Prickles & Goo: Alan Watts Trey Parker Matt Stone South Park (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM#)
-
As usual, my message came across quite differently than intended. I didn't mean that Brand should be excessively detailed. I meant that actions speak louder than words and vague platitudes and promises are also the currency of false messiahs and crooked politicians (such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, etc.).
I am quite familiar with Gandhi and one of the earliest things he did was burn an identity card, and he suffered a beating as a result. He didn't just talk about resistance, he did it. I take doers more seriously than ivory tower pontificators and actor/comedians who use their celebrity to make big talk with little action. Do you see the difference? Paxman was right, Brands' talking about global socialist revolution before having done much about it and the putting of Brands' name in the same category as Muhammad, Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, Malcolm X, etc., trivializes revolution, messiahs, prophets and leadership.
The Billy Connolly example also reminds us not to be fooled by false messiahs/gurus making promises that may be empty BS or have unintended negative consequences if they succeed. Billy is like the trickster or court jester/fool, revealing bad emperors and false messiahs to have no clothes.
Another thing I don't care for in Brand's message, is that a global socialist revolution assumes there's only one right "socialist" way to live in the world, and to hell with anyone who doesn't want it. It's not just coincidence that he doesn't like voting. He's smart enough to know that the majority of people in many nations don't want what he's selling. Not everyone wants a global socialist utopia or a global capitalist utopia or a global libertarian utopia. There's no one right way to live for everyone everywhere in the world.
-
Yes, I see the difference, Though I must keep insisting that there is a fundamental difference of vision that cant be reconciled, so the pissing match will never truly end, and at the end of the day I don't mind if it ever ends.
"The poet and the painter casting shadows on the water --
As the sun plays on the infantry returning from the sea.
The do-er and the thinker: no allowance for the other --
As the failing light illuminates the mercenary's creed".
From Thick as a Brick
Do you at least acknowledge the fact that there are gooey people who like vague platitudes, and enjoy getting enamored with the art of bullshit, and that its alright?
You mention the jester which is a very important role indeed. The jester plays the part of making fun off the king, so that the King doesn't make the folly of taking himself so seriously that he does mean things to oppress his people.
This role is still alive today as much as ever. Jay Leno, John Stuart, Steven Colbert, and many more of the talking head comedians whose job it is to make people laugh at situations and take less seriously issues that should really piss them off. The big time sellouts get laughs by pussyfooting around the real issues, while poking fun and being mostly trivial.
This is the real job of the jester, to pacify the people with jokes and distractions. They portray the rulers as imbeciles, so that people wont get revolutionary mad at them for making bad decisions or falling into corruption.
But the jester is a slave to his role, and when comedians like Brand or Rosanne try to step outside their designated position and take on the throne they are instantly discredited, because they lack any true authority.
Prickly people cant stand it when a person wont stay with their assigned boarders.
-
Not everyone wants a global socialist utopia or a global capitalist utopia or a global libertarian utopia. There's no one right way to live for everyone everywhere in the world.
I will stand with you on that point.
-
Thanks for the Watts recording. It says better some of what I've been trying to say. I enjoyed it and other of his talks and I much prefer him to what I've seen from Russell Brand so far.
Thanks also for the feedback about coming across too prickly. It's a nice counterbalance to Tyler's accusations of the opposite--too gooey (romantic noble savagery) ;D. As long as I'm getting it from both extremes of the gooey and prickly scale, perhaps I'm on the right path to the sort of zen balance of prickles and goo that Watts advocated in that Watts recording. :)
Replace Timothy Leary's name in this quote with Russell Brand's and you'll get some sense of another aspect of what I've been discussing:
"I was dismayed to see Timothy [Leary] converting himself into a popular store-front messiah with his name in lights, advocating psychedelic experience as a new world-religion." - Alan Watts, In My Own Way: An Autobiography, Vintage Books edition, 1973, p. 331
This is the real job of the jester, to pacify the people with jokes and distractions. They portray the rulers as imbeciles, so that people wont get to mad at them for making bad decisions or falling into corruption.
That's not how I see Connolly, nor the real job of a beneficial jester/trickster. Have you seen any of his performances? It's also not how Brand saw him when he wrote: "Who am I to argue with The Great Trickster Connolly?" By trickster, I don't mean an arch deceiver like modern politicians. I mean the positive sense that Brand meant and as discussed here:
Joseph Campbell--Mythology of the Trickster
Joseph Campbell--Mythology of the Trickster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM10AvJ3bsM#)
Alan Watts -- The role of the trickster
Alan Watts -- The role of the trickster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Z6EmNy4VY#)
A wise king knows he can learn from this sort of trickster/jester. The problem is few kings are wise.
I will stand with you on that point.
That's nice to see that we agree on this and some other things. Disagreements can also be interesting and instructive.
I wish you good luck on finding your socialist utopia--as long as I'm not forced into it too. :)
-
Err, I have no idea why these people are being viewed by PP and others as potential gurus, whether he likes them or not. I mean, both Brand and Connolly are described as being "British Comedians" in the UK media and many view them as unfunny ones. It is sort of as meaningless as if an American stated that he would not like Robin Williams or Chris Rock as President of the United States!
And, no, I also think that "too prickly" is a more accurate term than "too gooey". As for the Noble Savage theory, that no doubt comes from watching crappy dud films and TV series like Dances With Wolves, Little House on the Prairie and Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman too many times! I pray for PP's soul whenever I hear new nonsense from him about the dubious, supposed "excess" health of the Maasai or some other distant tribe. I wonder if PP has ever read "Bleak House" by Charles Dickens. He would find the character of Mrs Jellyby very similiar to his own.
-
Yes, I see the difference, Though I must keep insisting that there is a fundamental difference of vision that cant be reconciled, so the pissing match will never truly end, and at the end of the day I don't mind if it ever ends.
"The poet and the painter casting shadows on the water --
As the sun plays on the infantry returning from the sea.
The do-er and the thinker: no allowance for the other --
As the failing light illuminates the mercenary's creed".
From Thick as a Brick
Do you at least acknowledge the fact that there are gooey people who like vague platitudes, and enjoy getting enamored with the art of bullshit, and that its alright?
You mention the jester which is a very important role indeed. The jester plays the part of making fun off the king, so that the King doesn't make the folly of taking himself so seriously that he does mean things to oppress his people.
This role is still alive today as much as ever. Jay Leno, John Stuart, Steven Colbert, and many more of the talking head comedians whose job it is to make people laugh at situations and take less seriously issues that should really piss them off. The big time sellouts get laughs by pussyfooting around the real issues, while poking fun and being mostly trivial.
This is the real job of the jester, to pacify the people with jokes and distractions. They portray the rulers as imbeciles, so that people wont get revolutionary mad at them for making bad decisions or falling into corruption.
I disagree with you. Buddha and Christ never preached violence against the status quo no matter how bad the rulers. You don't fight evil by becoming it.
-
I disagree with you. Buddha and Christ never preached violence against the status quo no matter how bad the rulers. You don't fight evil by becoming it.
Rubbish. There is that example where Christ attacked the Jewish moneylenders in the temple and threw them out. And one or two other incidents I have forgotten. Oh, and Buddhists have interpreted Buddha's words as to recommend violence:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence)
-
Then I'm curious, can you paint a scenario where violent actions could have an optimal or long lasting positive outcome?
-
The American Revolution seems to stand out as an example. My forebears used violence to end English colonial rule.
Although the US and the UK remain allies geopolitically, I don't think anyone would claim that UK government holds any particular sway over the US. In fact, I would argue the opposite is now the case, with the US government quite able to bully the UK into doing all manner of things that don't necessarily serve that country's best interests.
-
good point. But how about in this current age. Seriously, imagine any force being used against any factor of the US government.. So again, please describe a scenario that would end up with a positive long term outcome. I think many are missing the point of what value Brand may bring to the world. And that simply is to question what really is happening. If you haven't seen the movie, Zeitgeist: The Movie,, check it out. Or Loose Change,,9/11. And you'll see there's a lot more pertinent things to discuss than whether Russell has an occasional high pitch to his voice or not.
-
Violence is messy. When the US fired the 'shot heard around the world' that started the revolutionary war, blood was shed and lives were lost on both sides of that conflict. In the end the oppressed (USA) turned out to be the victor. That wasn't a foregone conclusion, and historians can surely point out many failed attempts by oppressed peoples to use violence to gain freedom or independence (let's, for the time being, set aside how loaded both of those words are). Nonetheless, sometimes it works.
I've seen the movie Zeitgeist, as well as its two sequels, and have also seen the other films you list. I agree that there are more pertinent things to discuss then whether Russell Brand (or any particular person) has earned a place of honor amongst the rabble rousers. I also agree that there are more pertinent things to do than there are things to discuss. This discussion brings to mind a recent essay by Dmitry Orlov entitled The Sixth Stage of Collapse (http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-sixth-stage-of-collapse.html), an addendum to his recent book The Five Stages of Collapse. It's a great essay, one I recommend folks here read.
-
Err, I have no idea why these people are being viewed by PP and others as potential gurus, whether he likes them or not. I mean, both Brand and Connolly are described as being "British Comedians" in the UK media and many view them as unfunny ones. It is sort of as meaningless as if an American stated that he would not like Robin Williams or Chris Rock as President of the United States!
Its not that these people should be viewed as gurus, the question is primarily regarding, what constitutes a Messiah? Meaning a saiour, or one with a message capable of leading others to salvation. This is completely subjective and anyone here should feel free to name more pertinent examples of human beings among us who have messianic traits.
We all have personal heroes whom inspire us to be our best and do our best. Many of the greatest human beings I have known lived quietly and modestly, teaching lessons far too down to earth for any heavenly recognition. The problem is when discussing these wise people with others there is no common reference to converse upon, its basically a one sided sentimentalization of one persons opinion. So instead we must pick from those people who are recognizable and use their Iconic traits as fodder for these kinds of discussions.
Many legendary figures ranging from Jesus to the hobo saints I have known in my travels, never had an all encompassing comprehensive plan that was at the core of their actions, many were driven by something much more sublime. Nor did the actions of historical messiahs lead to universally positive outcomes. So speaking from a logical point of view when searching for messianic icons is an absurd waste of time. Still there is a persistence in these stories of mere men who chose to stand up to the pharisees of the day and wake the people up to the falseness and deception of the world. There is in this world many in great need of a new legend to rise out of rough, and inspire the courage to act in others. Who are the real life Tyler Durdens among us?
The window burns to light the way back home
A light that warms no matter where they've gone
They're off to find the hero of the day
But what if they should fall by someone's wicked way.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdoOqLGKj00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdoOqLGKj00)
-
Russell Brand is a joke! He is what people derisively call a "champagne socialist", a complete and utter hypocrite.
-
Russell Brand is a joke! He is what people derisively call a "champagne socialist", a complete and utter hypocrite.
Why do people have to be so mean?
In his message he makes it clear that in order to make waves in the media world you have to make scenes and be willing to make a fool of ones self. He could be viewed as a jester, but he is a fool who has allied himself with many of the most progressive and forward thinking people of this day. As far as for the charges of hypocrisy go, he seems to also make it clear that his hypocrisy doesn't take away from any of the issue he brings forward.
Do people expect him, or anyone else who takes a stand against the established money system to donate all of their money and live on the street. There are already countless saints and sages who have taken this route, and removed themselves from the world of hypocrisy, only to be forgotten and rendered impotent.
Lost in obscurity and oblivion the"Brand" haters loath those with optimistic faith and don't bother with listening to the content of the conversation, instead choosing to project their own negative feelings upon others, without seeing the possibility of what could be attained if only we would learn to quit judging the messenger so harshly.
-
I have no problem being against the banks and am disgusted at how the UK government bailed them out. However, we need more solid people to represent us, not hypocrites like Russell Brand. He is obviously hoping to get elected at some stage, despite previous pretences, and we need more honest people, and especially NOT the rich to represent us.
-
I will agree, there is a real need for honesty, and the people of Britannia should be represented by earnest and respectable leaders... Where are these noble souls and what are they waiting for?
Until the day that such people of integrity emerge to usurp the powers that be, people like Russel Brand are useful in informing people about the megalithic absurdity and unfair practices that go on under the current establishment. He may not be fit for leadership, but as a jester he is capable of empowering others by giving a voice to the progressive grass roots movements, while at the same time publicly ridiculing the Establishment.
If the of majority Brits are content to wait around for some knight in shining armor to restore honor to the kingdom and smite the pretenders to the throne, then they are much more of a joke than Russel brand could every be.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdoOqLGKj00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdoOqLGKj00)
If I understand correctly, Brand moved beyond mere words and Tweets, leading a protest that took on billionaires, succeeded and addressed the real issue of the housing crisis, yes?
-
He is a full blown narcissist (and hypocrite as all narcissists are).
-
He is a full blown narcissist (and hypocrite as all narcissists are).
Thats a subjective moralistic judgment, which may in some respects be true, but nevertheless in my personal view not everyone who is a narcissistic hypocrite is necessarily bad.
It often takes a rascal to take on the rascals.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ8ZYAvWTxo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ8ZYAvWTxo)
-
http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolution-last-night-1451318185?autoplay=1 (http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolution-last-night-1451318185?autoplay=1)
Strange times indeed when an actor and comedian calls out for world wide revolution. Although I am inspired by what he says, I am still skeptical. 100 years ago the Bolsheviks had a similar spiel and once the revolution was over, even bigger bastards took control than the ones who were thrown out.
Still he is right about many things, the time is now and we cant let the current political power structure set the agenda for the world of the future. The establishments politicians and their owners are not going to present the kind of alternatives that are needed to bring about the kind of changes that would benefit "We the People". We must take back the right to chose for ourselves what kind of world we want to live in, and take personal responsibility for the future we create.
Its the information age, anyone of us here is just as capable of being informed about the state of affairs in the world as anyone else. No longer should we allow decisions that effect everybody to be made behind closed doors by a small group of wealthy people, while the 99% are not allowed a seat at the table.
This is NOT STRANGE.
This Russel Brand guy has just woken up to the REALITY and the NEW CONSCIOUSNESS taking the world by storm these past few years. (I started waking up myself in 2006)
This guy Russel Brand has just spoken about his NEW CONSCIOUSNESS but he has no solutions yet.
Russel rightly says that there are others who may have the solutions...
example of a SOLUTION BELOW
I posted a video of a 4 hour talk of Michael Tellinger (South Africa) who wants a world revolution... an answer to what this Russel Brand has just exposed. Michael is some 10 - 20 years ahead and doing something about this problem with his Ubuntu Party / Global Movement.
Michael wants all central banks become PEOPLE's banks... then eventually the demise of money... get rid of all money. Money has enslaved humanity since the time we were created. Something like Star Trek... they had solved the problem of money.
(Remember Ron Paul and his End the Fed battle cry? Same consciousness.)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/startup-the-ubuntu-movement-in-your-country-4hr-lecture-by-michael-tellinger/msg127101/?topicseen#msg127101 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/startup-the-ubuntu-movement-in-your-country-4hr-lecture-by-michael-tellinger/msg127101/?topicseen#msg127101)
Like Jessica, I always stick to the message only.
Not the messenger.
This Russel guy may be a celebrity to some of you in your countries but I have no idea who he is.
His message is clear. He's just not the guy with the solutions.
He is just the messenger.
First They Ridicule You.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Something like that.
-
Michael wants all central banks become PEOPLE's banks... then eventually the demise of money... get rid of all money
Classical utopia. It only works in ... ants or bees and only within their nest.
People naturally are not suited for this model. You can't fool nature.
-
Classical utopia. It only works in ... ants or bees and only within their nest.
People naturally are not suited for this model. You can't fool nature.
100% (99.99999...%) wrong. This what we have and have had for a long time is outside negative manipulation, not nature. If there was no manipulation, it would essentially be utopia right now.
I'd suggest to upgrade your definitions of the world in regards to society and what's really possible and right and thus should be.
People presently are manipulated. People literally are not who they are supposed to be, thus of course everything will be messed up and no utopian-like society in effect.
I came to the exact same conclusions about money and how society should work all on my own some years ago. Then about a year ago I found this guy saying the exact same things, essentially wording the exact same solutions I would have in his position.
And of course in utopia there would be mistakes done and happening now and then (more in the beginning, less as it progresses), but they would be learned from and corrected and never, high emphasis on never, repeated. Because people would become aware of them quickly. And so mistakes would become rarer and rarer, until as if none at all, and until actually none at all (unless when potentially dealing with something that's outside their society and have little to no knowledge or experience with).
Repeating mistakes is how presently people are manipulated. Repeating mistakes is negative manipulation, not nature.
-
People presently are manipulated
Not just presently. It's been like that since day 1. Manipulation has always been there throughout human evolution.
And not just humans. All animals that form tight groups from small packs to huge colonies are highly manipulative. Individualism is not tolerated.
Humans already went through moneyless period. If it is such a good system, why do you think they abandoned it?
-
Not just presently. It's been like that since day 1. Manipulation has always been there throughout human evolution.
And not just humans. All animals that form tight groups from small packs to huge colonies are highly manipulative. Individualism is not tolerated.
I didn't mean it in the sense that just presently and never before. I meant it in the sense that they, we, still are manipulated (and/or still suffering the consequences of the manipulations), and that's why utopia is (still) mostly regarded as unachievable and nonsense.
Animals form groups because that's how they can survive. Even we humans couldn't survive nor progress without each other, so even for us it is natural and right to form groups.
In case of native human tribes there are elders and shamans people look toward for guidance. It is natural that some individuals, in terms of self growth, either physical or rational, or emotional, etc. grow faster than others and get ahead.
With animals, from our perspective, there seems like little individuality, so you have to look at them from their perspective. Plus the fact that our mental abilities enable much more varied individualities, but animals don't have such minds (plus animals aren't so highly genetically manipulated over the ages, unlike us).
The suppression of individuality is also a negative manipulation.
In case of animals, for example those who have higher individuality in the sense that they are physically and mentally above others (meaning they will win the challenges), those will become the "leaders" of the group. It is natural.
Humans already went through moneyless period. If it is such a good system, why do you think they abandoned it?
Negative manipulation. That's why.
But when did they go through it? What times are you referring to?
-
According to sumerian text scholars... homo erectus... before genetic engineering could not speak and could not understand their alien / godly commands... was the time of the moneyless period.
When the alien gods manipulated homo erectus and turned him into an adamus... the first human... the first discussion these god aliens made with adamus was about a river splitting in 4 and the first head going to the land of Havila... where there is GOLD and that GOLD is good.
Read your oldest Bible, Genesis 2. I found King James Bible Online.
Humans were born and alien god introduced GOLD at birth...
That is MIchael Tellinger's story... that humans had NEVER tried a moneyless system.
Homo erectus was not human. And there is no missing link.
-
Here is a messenger more precise, more formal, more respectable than Russel Brand and you can listen to his message this 2015. Presenting the great monetary historian Mr. Andrew Gause in New York City, USA.
(http://oneradionetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/andrew-gause.jpg)
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/monetary-historian-andrew-gause-usa-has-a-lot-of-atoning-to-do (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/monetary-historian-andrew-gause-usa-has-a-lot-of-atoning-to-do)
-
If Russell did achieve something tangible with his protest (and time will tell how effective it really was), then he has earned some credit, regardless of his personal failings. I will give him that.
He sure does have one of the strangest style preferences I've ever seen, though:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/03/article-2138800-12E020DF000005DC-457_476x889.jpg)
This looks like old lady + gym bum + crackhead style. Perhaps he figured out that the more outlandish he acts, the more media attention he gets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ8ZYAvWTxo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ8ZYAvWTxo)
Do you know what he wearing in that video and is there a special reason he wore it?
-
Do you know what he wearing in that video and is there a special reason he wore it?
It appears to be some kind of fancy motel towel, as for why he wore it, I could only guess?
Perhaps he wants to appear like an average news consumer, whom after taking a shower and waiting to dry off, picks up a news paper and becomes so enraged by what he is reading that he doesn't bother to get dressed before going off on a huge rant, decrying the twisted agenda of the corporate media.
I find it amusing that the primary criticism regarding brand has been that he is a "Narcissistic Hypocrite" Has anyone ever considered the point that many of the historical figures regarded as messiahs, oracles, prophets, sages if put under the same scrutiny could be called out for the same offence. I say hypocrisy is a part of human nature, and is only bad if it is used for nefarious purposes. Many hypocrites are idealist who have very pure intentions, such as aspiring to love thy neighbor and encouraging positive change. Even though they may not fully apply in their personal lives their publicly espoused ideals, so what. Who out there really does? Lord knows I dont!
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes"
The united states was founded by" Narcissistic hypocrites". Our founding fathers where boozing, slave owning, whore mongering, cannabis consuming, radicles.... yet many of their ideals and aspirations have merit!
-
His shows, tapes probably aren't selling as strongly as they once were, so he is reinventing himself to keep in the limelight. He is an entertainer (con artist even comes to mind) not a messiah .
Just forced myself to re-watch the first interview, it was painful.
If I understand correctly, Brand moved beyond mere words and Tweets, leading a protest that took on billionaires, succeeded and addressed the real issue of the housing crisis, yes?
Well I read he has solved his own personal housing crisis for when he travels to LA he owns a million dollar Hollywood mansion.
I suspect he puts a great deal of effort to dress like a bum.
I personally think everyone should live in an affluent area like Hoxton, close to the business centre, close to transport. It should be decided on fairness not the ability to pay for the rent ha ha.
-
Wodgina, Its very easy to criticize anyone for anything, we all fall short of the glory, and for sure I would agree that there are far more worthy messages in this world than those provided by Brand. People like John Perkins, as well as many others like Aaron Swartz, or Pat Tillman who have become the martyrs of our age, are much more honorable hero's
Yet because brand is associated with being ridiculed in the press, to the point of having no "credibility" he is in a position where he would be able to reach certain demographics with a message that other more eminent minds of our time would not be able to reach, because of the unilateral censorship apparatus of the Corporatocracy.
Many of the critics in the media Regarding brand centers around petty trivialities, and will not address the heart of the issues he brings up. He may be a rascal, he may live in a million dollar home, so what, what the fuck does that have to do with global awakening and the restructuring of our systems? So far I have heard very little critique of the message and much banter about some relativistic hypocrisy regarding the messenger.
The awakening is not some popularity contest, nor is it centered around any individual. Anyone who wants to participate should be free to stand and be counted. If Russell Brand is merely pandering to naïve Pollyanna sentimentalities of misguided people, so what, as long as his intentions are good, and the information he is spreading is "true" I don't think any less of the Man. He is only Human for Christ sake.
-
Wodgina, Its very easy to criticize anyone for anything, we all fall short of the glory, and for sure I would agree that there are far more worthy messages in this world than those provided by Brand. People like John Perkins, as well as many others like Aaron Swartz, or Pat Tillman who have become the martyrs of our age, are much more honorable hero's
Yet because brand is associated with being ridiculed in the press, to the point of having no "credibility" he is in a position where he would be able to reach certain demographics with a message that other more eminent minds of our time would not be able to reach, because of the unilateral censorship apparatus of the Corporatocracy.
Many of the critics in the media Regarding brand centers around petty trivialities, and will not address the heart of the issues he brings up. He may be a rascal, he may live in a million dollar home, so what, what the fuck does that have to do with global awakening and the restructuring of our systems? So far I have heard very little critique of the message and much banter about some relativistic hypocrisy regarding the messenger.
The awakening is not some popularity contest, nor is it centered around any individual. Anyone who wants to participate should be free to stand and be counted. If Russell Brand is merely pandering to naïve Pollyanna sentimentalities of misguided people, so what, as long as his intentions are good, and the information he is spreading is "true" I don't think any less of the Man. He is only Human for Christ sake.
I saw his documentary on drug addicts and he came across as unbelievable low on compassion (which is surprising considering he used to be one) I was really put off by him. This is why I joined the discussion.
He comes across as pretty harmless and he will be helpful for the cause , there is no doubt about it.
-
Has anyone ever considered the point that many of the historical figures regarded as messiahs, oracles, prophets, sages if put under the same scrutiny could be called out for the same offence.Has anyone ever considered the point that many of the historical figures regarded as messiahs, oracles, prophets, sages if put under the same scrutiny could be called out for the same offence.
Indeed, I have. Have you ever considered that some of us might not be enamored of many of the other "messiahs, oracles, prophets, sages" either? I'll bet there are some that you aren't impressed by, yes?
I give credit to Brand for moving beyond words and attention-grabbing and into constructive action. He's still not a messiah to me and it's that sort of over-the-top language that's part of what makes me skeptical. I hope it's just tongue-in-cheek.
He is only Human for Christ sake.
My point exactly. Ordinary human--not messiah/oracle.
Perhaps he could be summed up as a flawed activist? It seems like he is striving to do better, in what he sees as better. Who knows, maybe he'll earn more respect and commendation in the future.
-
Brand was recently ridiculed over his protest at a bank:-
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/russell-brand-publicity-stunt-ridiculed-by-rbs-worker-from-bangor-30845881.html (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/russell-brand-publicity-stunt-ridiculed-by-rbs-worker-from-bangor-30845881.html)
Brand also came off worse in a debate with Farage:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871279/Russell-Brand-chest-hair-STRAIGHTENED-stylist-ahead-Question-Time-appearance-says-Nigel-Farage.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871279/Russell-Brand-chest-hair-STRAIGHTENED-stylist-ahead-Question-Time-appearance-says-Nigel-Farage.html)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2813868/Russell-Brand-s-film-company-received-cash-injection-city-bankers.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2813868/Russell-Brand-s-film-company-received-cash-injection-city-bankers.html)
One can always tell when a particular epoch has become completely decadent. One generally sees more "gender-confused" people like Russell Brand being far more prominent/numerous in public during those times.
-
Looks like the tribe has spoken. " go ahead and Nail the heathen to a cross of scorns"
Phil may be right and there is no such thing as a messiah, though I insist there must be people of various kinds who in various ways embody the spirit of the age. These people may reflect some very uncomfortable truths, and so are reviled by good society. Inevitably there will be people waiting to cast judgment upon anyone who attempts to resurrect the archaic notions that divinely inspired individuals live among us. There is a prevailing attitude that no one is divine, so any human who aspires to be must be viewed skeptically. Perhaps rightly so given the absolute humanitarian catastrophe the life of the historic Jesus has been.
Yet in an age of instant access of information and free association between fellow humans, I believe there is the real possibility of an evolution in consciousness, and we need people from all walks of life to spread the word that we are the divine spark, anyone is capable of embodying a higher spiritual self and changing the world .This seems to be a very taboo Ideal and the hierarchy of the established order will not accept the belief that everyone, no matter how fucked up your world is, can transcend the limitations placed upon us by those who choose to use the gift of life, to hate and bring down others instead of lifting them up with Love.
This discussion does not have to center around The individual known as Russell Brand, I really just wanted to discuss some of his ideas more deeply, without getting into pissing match regarding his moral fiber, and particular quirks. Anyone else please feel free to put forth your own messianic idols to sacrifice at the alter of public opinion? Who in our world is the living embodiment of the humanist Ideal?
-
This guy has a way cooler message than your typical messiah, and he practices what he preaches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRmLXCnbVuA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRmLXCnbVuA)
-
yup
-
Looks like the tribe has spoken. " go ahead and Nail the heathen to a cross of scorns"
Phil may be right and there is no such thing as a messiah, though I insist there must be people of various kinds who in various ways embody the spirit of the age. These people may reflect some very uncomfortable truths, and so are reviled by good society. Inevitably there will be people waiting to cast judgment upon anyone who attempts to resurrect the archaic notions that divinely inspired individuals live among us. There is a prevailing attitude that no one is divine, so any human who aspires to be must be viewed skeptically. Perhaps rightly so given the absolute humanitarian catastrophe the life of the historic Jesus has been.
Yet in an age of instant access of information and free association between fellow humans, I believe there is the real possibility of an evolution in consciousness, and we need people from all walks of life to spread the word that we are the divine spark, anyone is capable of embodying a higher spiritual self and changing the world .This seems to be a very taboo Ideal and the hierarchy of the established order will not accept the belief that everyone, no matter how fucked up your world is, can transcend the limitations placed upon us by those who choose to use the gift of life, to hate and bring down others instead of lifting them up with Love.
This discussion does not have to center around The individual known as Russell Brand, I really just wanted to discuss some of his ideas more deeply, without getting into pissing match regarding his moral fiber, and particular quirks. Anyone else please feel free to put forth your own messianic idols to sacrifice at the alter of public opinion? Who in our world is the living embodiment of the humanist Ideal?
Unfortunately this is not how the world seems to work, and discussion has to center around Russell Brand. I would rather punch myself in the head than listen to that guy.
-
I would rather punch myself in the head than listen to that guy.
Finally, it had to happen: Wodgina and I agree on one thing.
If Brand is a messiah (with a small m), who has proclaimed him as their leader? As an entertainer, his work is backed by his producers, who market his "messages" to a target audience. If he espouses a "cause" and derives his "content" from that cause and delivers a "message" using his entertainer persona, he is still an entertainer. Take the camera away and I'll consider him for some other title.
-
That's a straw man tactic, and a bit thick headed, saying that one is unable to discuss the message without criticism of the messenger. Martin Luther King was a philanderer, who wasn't there for his children, Gandhi would bicker and fight with his wife, Thomas Jefferson" a founding father of the free world" had sex slaves. Regardless of the failings of these historic men, we can still discuss their ideals separately from the moral judgments society would place on their actions.
The world has changed so quickly and the wise ones of the past, if suddenly placed under the microscope of a video media empire would break apart at the seams.
So Eve.....If a messiah prophesizes in the forest and no one is there to hear, does the message truly exist? Take the camera away and Brand will fade out into obscurity.
Perhaps we are all too dependent upon the media to bring to us a truth that can only truly be found in direct experience.
Be a lamp unto your selves, and help light the path for those not yet illuminated. So, you don't like the particular colors of another's light, Perhaps your own light much too bright to see the value in the more dimly lit minds of those still caught up the great illusion" Maya"... but what good does that do for the world of Humankind, unless you can learn how to get that message out..
Perhaps, I fall prey to the illusion that is not enough to simply live out your own truth and stay true to your own values, having been told early on by the world that what I felt and thought didn't matter. I can identify with people who seem to have lived a life full of inner turmoil and confliction, to a point where I have no judgment upon them for their human failings, only an interest in their higher aspirations. Or what Dostoevsky called "the beautiful and sublime."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcMQWfMTfJ8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcMQWfMTfJ8)
-
So Eve.....If a messiah prophesizes in the forest and no one is there to hear, does the message truly exist? Take the camera away and Brand will fade out into obscurity.
That's the problem with a messiah who is all message. A person cannot be a "leader" if he is all talk. You have to go somewhere and do something if you want a following, and a convicted leader will lead with action even when nobody is following. Let's see what Brand would do if nobody turned up for his show.
Perhaps we are all too dependent upon the media to bring to us a truth that can only truly be found in direct experience.
And what a sad commentary on our era that many are even looking for a messiah!
-
No one should follow anyone nor anything.
No person who sufficiently understands the world and how matters should be, would ever want a following.
People who follow are religious. Being religious is negative, because being religious means the person simply believes no matter whether the object of belief is true or false, and in fact without personally having any true understanding of the object.
There's two kinds of beliefs (maybe more...): one when belief originates externally, also meaning the object believed is not part of the person, and in truth doesn't understand the object; the other when belief originates from within the person, because what is believed is part of the person, which also means the person actually has deep understanding of the object. (And mixes of these two belief forms, like in religions where truths and lies are mixed up, and thus how one form of belief is confused with another on many levels. Where perhaps actual truth is indeed part of the person, but to it is attached lies, thus lies are in extension part of the person... It's a negative vortex hard to get out of once in deep.)
Someone can follow something only if that something is not part of the person. If it was a true part of the person, then the person would not be following anything, but would simply be who he or she is.
You cannot follow yourself, you are yourself. But if you do follow something, then who are you?
Anyone who does something or says something and likes having followers doesn't really have a clue about the world, or has some negative agenda and uses people as a tool.
Belief and believing is a wall of the box of the matrix we are subjected to.
Imitating truth is one thing, but living it, having truth as an actual part of oneself, is something completely different.
Messiahs? Impostors, hypocrites, plain and simple.
We don't need messiahs or anything such, as all they do is talk empty and collect followers without actually making anything better, because they are victims or users of the belief matrix, and they suck those unaware into the very thing we need to get out of. What we need is people who can guide and help others find themselves and the world they live in, to show people how to find truths and integrate/incorporate those truths so they could start living truths and not keep imitating them.
From birth onward we are taught to imitate truths. Parents who are unaware, schools, media, etc. If we imitate truths, then at the same time what are we living?
Messiah is someone that's supposed to be like a "savior" or something such? Every person can save only oneself, others can help but they can't do the act of "saving"; no other person can do this for anyone but him or herself. The word "messiah" doesn't even have meaning that's actually worth something, because it is a part of the belief matrix. The worth of the word and concept of "messiah" is negative in its essence (at least in the context it's been used throughout the ages).
King, messiah, prophet, priest, etc. - all the same. As if one, or a small group of people is going to "save" everyone else (save from what?? those very same few people and their agendas?), and so everyone else can simply not do anything (thus keeping themselves in the negative), because they are going to be "saved" by a few people. But sure, it's all about perspectives... the people are going to be "saved", but from truth and positivity, into lies and negativity, or from one rut to another of the same.
There are no messiahs, never will be. Those who seemingly do something great, they are just people like any other, who perhaps have merely noticed there's more to this than meets the eye, and have investigated further. Put any person through the right conditions suitable to them, that sparks truth in them... (maybe not all, but definitely most).
-
I am in agreement with you guys in many regards.
What I would like to direct attention too is the fact that people in our present society still possesses a strong desire to be spoon fed predigested messianic banter, only now instead of calling it revelation from god, it has morphed into entities such as the Associate Press that have given us the "News Testament" Which brand and many others are railing against.
The messiah complex is much more deeply embedded into our collective soul than is really being discussed. People like Russell Brand who are delving back into the antiquated religious beliefs of the distant past, can allow us to see how our in our age much of man kind is still paralyzed by established religious entities, only these entities are have evolved into much more sophisticated forms of thought control.
The lord Mammon reigns supreme embodied by the financial overlords that rule in our day. The news anchors, and talking heads now act as our priest, disseminating the worlds events, dogmatically, through a very narrow and highly control scope.
Yet the spirit will not be contained, and humanity yearns to be free. To me its a bit trite to simply denounce all talk of the Messianic nature of human beings as humbug. We are given the word as a gift from the divine creation. With it we have learned to collaborate with each other to move mountains.
To focus ones thought in cultivation of an inner vision, guided by an inner voice, and then bringing that message into the outer world, is only a small part of what it means to be a messiah. One also must learn to listen to the voices around, with great discernment, awareness, and compassion in order to not get carried away by ego.
-
It would be such a treat if I can see the discarding of money in human life in my lifetime.
Star Trek fantasy.
Michael Tellinger's Ubuntu Movement is what I'm monitoring.
I have a friend just like him with his ideas of a moneyless community.
But Tellinger is special, he wants money less global.
And he is not claiming to be a messiah, he just wants to spread his info, he is doing his thing for his country in South Africa, and you see if you can do it in your country.
If we are dreaming anyway, dream big.
-
But when did they go through it? What times are you referring to?
early on, hunter/gatherer societies.
then came shiny things.
then coins.
then paper money.
then electronic money.
these these appeared not just because someone wanted it like that, it took thousands of years to evolve the money system we have today. it is not perfect, but it works the best at the moment.
all technological progress was/is funded by venture capital directly and indirectly.
without monetary rewards all technological progress will grind to a screeching halt.
Look at what happened to Soviet Union where no one could own Intellectual Property and could not be rewarded monetarily. They've got nothing except for special interests like military and space and even then most of it is already far behind Western products.
So when someone brings out various moneyless systems I see it as a step backwards. Humans been there already.
If I have a rare skill or a great idea that's in high demand, how do you I think I get rewarded in moneyless system?
-
That's the problem with a messiah who is all message. A person cannot be a "leader" if he is all talk.
Yes, and Brand has moved beyond talk now, if but a little. Maybe he will do more in the future. I try to always be open minded. One of the key aspects of MLK, Gandhi and Rabbi Yeshua is that they were men of action, however flawed, who put their lives on the line. Time will tell whether Brand's actions do any substantial good and how committed he is. He would earn more of my respect if he walked the walk more, such as by leaving his expensive digs and moving into a tenement yard or yurt. :)
As YS pointed out, past Bolshevik messiahs resulted in the horrible Soviet system, however unintentional it allegedly was. "Fooled me once..."
-
Somewhat long...
You seriously need to rethink your entire worldview regarding this topic because, seriously and honestly, none that you take as real is based on reality. It's based on lies, literal lies, and all of it. Not trying to offend or anything, just putting the fact straight out.
I once thought and believed the same you still do. I mean the negative and blind belief - where you absolutely do not know where the object of belief actually came from, why it is, what it really is, etc. But then reality got in the way and I found out.
There's too much to consider and say to give a whole answer. So you'll have to find the missing on your own.
these these appeared not just because someone wanted it like that, it took thousands of years to evolve the money system we have today. it is not perfect, but it works the best at the moment.
They in fact did appear just because someone wanted it like that. But then the question is why did someone want it like this? Quite simple really - living according to money. You don't have money, you don't live; you have little, you live a little; you have a lot, you live a lot. But who controls the flow of money? Who decides who gets how much? The system? But then why is the system designed in a way that people live in severe lack of money and suffer day in and day out because of it?
Population increases, prices increase. Who makes the extra money? And from what? Also, why does the debt of countries and people only rise, why can't anyone pay up their debt? Debts constantly increase, there's always more money needed to pay them up. But then where should they get the money to pay their debts? Squeeze people even more?? Or take a lot of money from a bank - which translates again into another debt. Where should the money come from to pay up the ever increasing debts? Why is the system designed in a way that debts rise and rise and rise? Where does the money come from? Who makes the money? Who keeps this circle of imbecility running, and why?
It's obvious nothing is right, everything is wrong. If money was so right and so good, then why is the system designed to squeeze people who already don't have anywhere near enough for a decent life; why is the system designed in a way that people literally become slaves to money and they literally are willing to do anything for it? Because they believe money is the only reality, that money is the only way it should be and only way it can work? Why do people even take money as the only and best and right way of society, when, as you can see yourself just by looking around anywhere, that all money does is hurt everyone!
Have you ever noticed or considered that this present society is one that's driven by suffering and fear. Lack of money for a decent life is suffering, the constant thought of "can I pay my bills, my debts this month" is generating constant fear.
Do you think it is right for a society to be driven by suffering and fear, when in stark contrast there exists happiness and joy?
Being a rawist, I think you know well enough what suffering and fear is like, or should be like, and what it does to health and productivity in every way. In opposite, you also know what joy and happiness does to the same aspects. One takes lower and lower, the other higher and higher.
It is all so obvious.
Who makes all the food, clothes, everything else? Does money do that? No! People do all of that. Money only gets in the way.
There are so many jobs that are about managing money itself, that deal with just money - those jobs are 100% pointless waste of workforce that could alleviate, by a lot, the work hours of those who actually produce something essential that everyone needs.
How many jobless people are there? There's no need for them to be jobless, there's so much to do absolutely everywhere, always and ever. And they can't utilize themselves because there's no money for them, because no one's willing to pay a decent wage for them?
If everyone was utilized in producing something essential and necessary, and no pointless crap, no nonsense, then one person would maybe have to work just one day a week. Is one day a week too much?
In what conditions do people work better and more efficiently? Suffering and fear, or happiness and enjoyment?
Money is backed up only by lies the people are led to believe and live by.
Rewards as they are viewed from capitalistic perspectives are lies. We don't need rewards, we need food, clothes, tools, etc. - things that actually matter and actually are absolutely essential for positive progress and enjoyment of life.
What better reward than happiness and enjoyment of living a life worth living?
Do you enjoy the lack of money? Or just do you enjoy money? Or is money actually a burden to you? Would you rather live in a world where you have all you need and get all you need, whenever you need it, and thus live in constant happiness and enjoyment and thus in the true reward of life? Or would you rather live in a world where you live in constant fear of running out and the suffering of deficiency? Pointless to ask, isn't it...
It's all beyond imbecilic.
Look at what happened to Soviet Union where no one could own Intellectual Property and could not be rewarded monetarily. They've got nothing except for special interests like military and space and even then most of it is already far behind Western products.
Soviet Union was a charade, a "false flag" nonsense, or such, an attempt to make moneyless societies seem stupid, impossible, and very very bad. Globally. You fell for that lie and are still in it, for a time so was I, because it is taught to us in school, and through other methods, and we are also taught to not question "authority". And who gives us all that "knowledge" of what is real and right and impossible? "Authority" of course... Since we are taught to not question authority, we simply believe what it says without ever thinking critically.
Considering you know about dieting and the lies of health that "authority" spews; you know authority literally lies about diet and health... Is it really such a big leap to consider that maybe the lies go much farther and much deeper?
So when someone brings out various moneyless systems I see it as a step backwards. Humans been there already.
If you meet a dead end, you have to go back to see where it all went wrong, and why. Money is a dead end, going back is removing it altogether. You cannot fix the problem if you keep the underlying factors in place. The same with health, you cannot heal if you don't address and remove the real underlying cause.
Has humanity been in a moneyless society with such numbers of people? Well, I'm fairly certain it has, but those societies were ended on purpose with nuclear and energy weapons of mass destruction... of which there is abundant proof globally, and absolutely no proof that any such things didn't happen.
Backward... Money is backward. Removing it is onward.
Just look yourself, at present humanity and what money is in actual truth doing. Forget what "authority" claims and has taught you, just for some moments, and look, you cannot miss it.
If I have a rare skill or a great idea that's in high demand, how do you I think I get rewarded in moneyless system?
Demand? Rewarded? They are lies. Both of them, at least by the rules of capitalism, of money.
If you have a rare skill, why wouldn't you be able to utilize it? And you say it's in high demand... In a moneyless society... Contradictory...
You evidently lack the definitions and understanding necessary to see how and why a moneyless society would work. If you apply capitalistic values and rules and try to understand a moneyless society through those, then of course nothing would work!! Different set of rules and values. It's like trying to describe human metabolism through steam technology or hydraulics principles and rules, or whatever else that doesn't fit at all. Different values and rules - you don't even know what they are - and are asserting understanding of a system you don't even know the rules and values of.
-
Money is the God of our age, and the peoples faith in it, is truly a religion onto itself.
The inner circle of the financial establishment have taken on the role of the Pharisees, in disseminating monetary dogma and enforcing the primacy of their Money over all other forms of exchange. Today we can see the same old stories play out, just as Jesus had decried the money changers, there are prophets of our age railing against the financial orders, in the same fight for what is essentially a cry for justice and fairness for the meek!
No one whom has a smidgen of sanity can possibly believe that the institutions which control Money can be transformed overnight, or that through some revolution money can be done away with. Its taken eons for our monetary systems to evolve from primitive barter, into the world banking system. The question is what is the next step. If our current systems are out of balance and not sustainable, then we need to work on ways of making it more so. Perhaps one day we will evolve into the star trek economy, which Gene Rodenberry Predicted to be around 2400. Hopefully by then we will be evolved enough to no longer require a debt based money system to fund the progress of humanity.
Until that day, we need to focus on what the founders of America were focused on, when they broke free from the bank of England. The American revolution was an economic revolution which was fought for their right to financial independence. Of course soon after independence the money vultures came in and established new perches, this is why Jefferson said that each generation needs its own revolution!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC0GT_8l_I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC0GT_8l_I)
-
Money is the God of our age, and the peoples faith in it, is truly a religion onto itself.
meritocracynow.net
-
meritocracynow.net
The above link has no genuine element of meritocracy. It goes on and on about equality, and equality of outcome is the most pernicious evil that has ever beset humankind. Equality of opportunity is also a fraud as, for example, people who are more intelligent or talented automatically have an advantage over others in a genuinely meritocratic society, and that website talks about how absolutely EVERYONE, no matter how stupid or untalented they be, should have equal opportunity to all others. The only possible way to achieve that is to ruin the chances of intelligent or competent people to rise above the masses simply because the morons and the incompetent cannot improve themselves past a very limited point.
-
There are fallacies on both sides of the equality issue that are seldom articulated very well. People have been grappling with this issue for as long as we have been naming gods, and tinkering with the religious ideals that are at the heart of the issue of equality and inequity. Being a universalist and pantheist, I have the view that it takes all kinds to make the world, and there is no one set of ethics by which to govern the distribution of wealth to the people( fairness is a religious ideal). There is a dichotomy which may never be resolved. We can only attempt to cultivate an awareness of reality as it is, and use this understanding to guide us on our own paths as we muddle through.
Some seem to be chosen to have wealth and be blessed with abilities by fate, which give them an unfair advantage in this game of life. Others through force of will, fight tooth and nail to get ahead. Then we have the ideal of people who are blessed with ability, and use their gifts to enrich them selves while lifting up others. On the other side, there are those who were born disadvantage... lacking in ability, knowledge, or opportunity to rise up. People can have personal judgments as to who is more deserving, but that still does not change the fact that each path to prosperity is not determined by an ideal, but instead by reality.
There are I think legitimate grievances that arise when groups of people use their acquisitions to suppress and keep others down deliberately. Such as when the ruling elite in the days of Robin Hood made it illegal for the peasants to hunt for meat, so that they became weak and malnourished, while the kings feasted. Using the law and the power of money to enslave others goes beyond what the defenders of the free market can claim is just or equitable. Yet we live in an age where slavery and economic tyranny reign supreme. There are nations of people that while on the verge of rising out of the third world, have been destroyed by the empire of mammon( Iran, Iraq, Libya, along with countless others forgotten by history) People whose industry and capability begin to rival the powers that be, are being arbitrarily destroyed. Then out of the ashes of their bombed cities, a rabble of poor, maladjusted people remain which the overlords can judge as not fit or disserving of human status.
I agree with TD that giving out equality to everyone regardless of merit, is contrary to the reality of things, but I also believe that denying the masses of people the opportunity to develop their potential, by the hoarding of resources by the Money class, is just as big of a problem.
Sure there are a lot of stupid, misguided people in the world, and if just given a pension they would not contribute anything in return. Though this doesn't take into the account the environmental conditions which lead to them being as they are. Processed food, poisons in the environment, media brainwashing,education indoctrination, etc. Many of these problems facing the 8 billion people on this planet are in part related to the 1% of the worlds population that controls 50% of the worlds reasorces. Problem solving reasorces which are not being used to their full human potential, are being hoarded on a megalomaniacal scale.
What is being spent is being invested in instruments of death and retardation. The money being spent on war could easily take care of everyone on the planet. Instead of training secret armies to destroy nations,( which btw is going on right now on an ungodly scale) if the same resources were used to fund mercenaries of peace, that would go into troubled places and work with the locals to develop systems that would allow them to live indigenously and in harmony with the local ecosystem, just imagine what kind of world there could be( at least I can still dream)