Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Russell Brand Interviewed By Paxman

Recommended Posts

Is it beyond the wit of the age demographic he is supposed to speak for, many of whom will have been through Uni, to form these opinions on their own? Why does Brand need to be the spokesman?

Hmm, a spokesman doesn't form opinions, he voices them. So, your real question is "why does the famous person who gets to say this on the MSM have to be someone famous?"

Let's try this one more time:

  • He is not particularly lucid

  • He is not saying anything that many haven't felt for some time

  • He's Russell Brand - get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, a spokesman doesn't form opinions, he voices them. So, your real question is "why does the famous person who gets to say this on the MSM have to be someone famous?"

Let's try this one more time:

  • He is not particularly lucid
  • He is not saying anything that many haven't felt for some time
  • He's Russell Brand - get over it.

Can`t really pretend to understand what point you are trying to make, you seem to like telling people what they are thinking and what words they should be using , Brand is more lucid than you, that is for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a company makes £100 profit someone must of borrowed that £100 in the first place (FRB).

If companies have billions of pounds on their balance sheet. Then there must be billions of pounds of debt.

The debt can never be extinguished If these profits aren't circulated in the economy.

If you engage in voluntary trade with someone, both of you will come away thinking they are 'up' on the deal.

The problems come when the trade is involuntary or, as you point out, fiat is involved.

Brand wrote off profit as being inherently bad, which it's not, and didn't mention the money system or debt, which often are.

And the world being the curious place that it is, as recently as only last month Brand was reportedly boinking his way into the Goldsmith/ Rothschild clan.

Standard: Are Jemima Khan and Russell Brand still an item?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can`t really pretend to understand what point you are trying to make, you seem to like telling people what they are thinking and what words they should be using , Brand is more lucid than you, that is for sure.

You claimed Brand was an opinion former and equated that with being a spokesperson - I'm merely pointing out that the two are not synonymous (but, hey, dictionaries are for sheeple). For some reason you seem to be hung up on IT'S RUSSELL EFFING BRAND and I'm confused as to why. You (and others) seem desperate to ascribe to him a role he's clearly unsuitable for in order to knock him down. Why not just say "Well, I'm not keen on this person, but it's good that someone got to say that stuff and stir some debate on the MSM"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you engage in voluntary trade with someone, both of you will come away thinking they are 'up' on the deal.

The problems come when the trade is involuntary or, as you point out, fiat is involved.

Brand wrote off profit as being inherently bad, which it's not, and didn't mention the money system or debt, which often are.

And the world being the curious place that it is, as recently as only last month Brand was reportedly boinking his way into the Goldsmith/ Rothschild clan.

Standard: Are Jemima Khan and Russell Brand still an item?

I suspect that if he wants to talk about the money system and debt he won`t be on the air, could be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a company makes £100 profit someone must of borrowed that £100 in the first place (FRB).

If companies have billions of pounds on their balance sheet. Then there must be billions of pounds of debt.

The debt can never be extinguished If these profits aren't circulated in the economy.

You (and Russell) seem to be conflating credit/debt with profit/loss. They are two different sets of things.

If I am hungry and have a fiver and you have a burger, we can make an exchange. We have both profited - we are both better off than we were before.

In a free market, if a company ends up making a profit, it is because it is offering something that people want and providing it efficiently. This is a good thing and both parties benefit.

As for our credit/debt based monetary system and the state backed banking cartel at the centre of it, that's a different issue altogether. You don't need FRB banking or state fiat money, in order for trade to be profitable.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claimed Brand was an opinion former and equated that with being a spokesperson - I'm merely pointing out that the two are not synonymous (but, hey, dictionaries are for sheeple). For some reason you seem to be hung up on IT'S RUSSELL EFFING BRAND and I'm confused as to why. You (and others) seem desperate to ascribe to him a role he's clearly unsuitable for in order to knock him down. Why not just say "Well, I'm not keen on this person, but it's good that someone got to say that stuff and stir some debate on the MSM"?

I used spokesperson in terms of him saying what a generation are supposed to be thinking according to how some posters are talking about him. I explained previously why having someone like him mouthing off is not creating a "debate" it is just creating a circus where he is set up and then "wiser" pundits line up to shoot him down. There will never be a debate in the mainstream media along the lines of the discussions on here, you need to accept that or be disappointed IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used spokesperson in terms of him saying what a generation are supposed to be thinking according to how some posters are talking about him. I explained previously why having someone like him mouthing off is not creating a "debate" it is just creating a circus where he is set up and then "wiser" pundits line up to shoot him down. There will never be a debate in the mainstream media along the lines of the discussions on here, you need to accept that or be disappointed IMO.

Largely agree, but I'm not sure that matters. There is a revolution already taking place in people's attitudes towards the current status quo. At the moment it's just a revolution of attitude, of relationship to the state. As the next generation step into the shoes of the previous - in the media, in politics, in economics - that change will be addressed. Personally, I'm hoping to avoid outright rebellion if a better outcome can be achieved without it, but the only hope of that is if the repudiation of the current system becomes mainstream before actual revolution becomes unavoidable. Either way, I'm encouraged by what's going on. On facebook, the only dissenter I've come across in various threads on the subject, was a middle-aged journalist from the FT. Things are happening, and the Brand interview is just a symptom, not a cause, hence my confusion as to why everyone's so hung-up on it beyond that observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this thread still generating discussion? :blink:

Meta-analysis, a proxy for other discussions, and a row about the word "sheeple". You know - the normal stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Largely agree, but I'm not sure that matters. There is a revolution already taking place in people's attitudes towards the current status quo. At the moment it's just a revolution of attitude, of relationship to the state. As the next generation step into the shoes of the previous - in the media, in politics, in economics - that change will be addressed. Personally, I'm hoping to avoid outright rebellion if a better outcome can be achieved without it, but the only hope of that is if the repudiation of the current system becomes mainstream before actual revolution becomes unavoidable. Either way, I'm encouraged by what's going on. On facebook, the only dissenter I've come across in various threads on the subject, was a middle-aged journalist from the FT. Things are happening, and the Brand interview is just a symptom, not a cause, hence my confusion as to why everyone's so hung-up on it beyond that observation.

Well, the London riots took me by surprise, I watched it unfold on the news one night at work and couldn`t believe what I was seeing, so there is something bubbling away under the surface for sure, but I can`t see where mass revolution against the status quo is going to come from, does anyone even know what the status quo is anymore? To me people seem even more shut down than in previous decades, just attached to their phones all the time. The best way to "revolt" IMO is for the masses to stop taking credit from banks, if that happened on the scale of millions there would be VI`s in suits throwing up in their cornflakes all round the globe, that would be a sweet day for me, but I fear it is not going to happen any time soon. The problem I have with Brand is that the media think they are using him as a safety valve, let him rant a while, let facebook buzz about it for a while, then let everybody go back to X-Factor. If the 20 somethings now got the chance to ride a massive HPI wave they would do it, just like the last lot IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are happening, and the Brand interview is just a symptom, not a cause, hence my confusion as to why everyone's so hung-up on it beyond that observation.

The hang-up is partly because of this interview being put out by the state broadcasting company. Partly because it is laden with glittering generalities. Partly because of its apparent viral popularity.

I'm not hung up with the interview per se but I am cautious and fully expect the corporate media and the political class to attempt to channel the change in attitude you refer to. Co-option (and eventual dissipation) of grass roots movements and popular discontent is a standard play.

Edited by Nuggets Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You (and Russell) seem to be conflating credit/debt with profit/loss. They are two different sets of things.

If I am hungry and have a fiver and you have a burger, we can make an exchange. We have both profited - we are both better off than we were before.

In a free market, if a company ends up making a profit, it is because it is offering something that people want and providing it efficiently. This is a good thing and both parties benefit.

As for our credit/debt based monetary system and the state backed banking cartel at the centre of it, that's a different issue altogether. You don't need FRB banking or state fiat money, in order for trade to be profitable.

I guess my main problem is with the profits being hoarded. This means that the debts that are on the other side of these hoarded profits can't be paid. If the debts can't be paid then the banks are bankrupt as in 2008.

High interest rates make the situation worse because even more money goes to the money hoarders. Hence zirp.

There are two ways to get things back into equilibrium.

1) Take the money off the money hoarders --- Cyprus

2) Print money and spend it into the economy --- the rest of the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with Brand is that the media think they are using him as a safety valve, let him rant a while, let facebook buzz about it for a while, then let everybody go back to X-Factor.

Funnily enough, Brand mentioned 'Occupy' at one point in the interview and even acknowledged that it hadn't come to very much, except to put the concept of the '1%' into the popular lexicon...

The Occupy movement made a difference in, even if, only in that, it introduced, to the popular public lexicon, the idea of the 1% versus the 99%. People for the first time in a generation are aware of massive, corporate and economic exploitation.

That's quite a silly thing to be claiming impo. I suspect people were aware of these things before Occupy, got drawn into Occupy because of their awareness, and then ... nada.

Edited by Nuggets Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my main problem is with the profits being hoarded. This means that the debts that are on the other side of these hoarded profits can't be paid. If the debts can't be paid then the banks are bankrupt as in 2008.

High interest rates make the situation worse because even more money goes to the money hoarders. Hence zirp.

There are two ways to get things back into equilibrium.

1) Take the money off the money hoarders --- Cyprus

2) Print money and spend it into the economy --- the rest of the world

3) Take the power to create money away from the banks and give it to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3) Take the power to create money away from the banks and give it to the government.

Alternatively, as monarchs/ states historically had no problem screwing around with currency without banker assistance, do away with monopolies over money creation altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[on the subject of the concept of 'the 1%' in popular thinking]

That's quite a silly thing to be claiming impo. I suspect people were aware of these things before Occupy, got drawn into Occupy because of their awareness, and then ... nada.

I think you may misunderstand. The illumination wasn't of those that went on to "get involved" with Occupy, but of the average person in the street who watched it all.

If you didn't misunderstand, then I think you may be extrapolating your own pre-Occupy awareness to the general public. I think Russell Brand is correct on this point: the idea of "the 1%" is a much more specific and potent an idea in the mind of the white van man down the pub than a vague "well, bankers/politicians are all useless/bent, aren't they" notion that he may well previously have held. Generalised feeling of discontent never lead to anything, they need something more specific to crystalise around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Co-option (and eventual dissipation) of grass roots movements and popular discontent is a standard play.

Indeed (my father wrote a book about it in the '60s). The difference is that people aren't fighting back against a largely social abstract; they're responding to an unavoidable reality. It isn't going to go away until it's fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may misunderstand. The illumination wasn't of those that went on to "get involved" with Occupy, but of the average person in the street who watched it all.

If you didn't misunderstand, then I think you may be extrapolating your own pre-Occupy awareness to the general public. I think Russell Brand is correct on this point: the idea of "the 1%" is a much more specific and potent an idea in the mind of the white van man down the pub than a vague "well, bankers/politicians are all useless/bent, aren't they" notion that he may well previously have held. Generalised feeling of discontent never lead to anything, they need something more specific to crystalise around.

It's always tricky to avoid projecting your own feelings/ awareness onto others. So, it's a fair point to raise.

From my perspective though, it didn't seem like Occupy did very much to educate the ordinary, 'unilluminated' people who were watching. Their generalised discontent is still very much a generalised discontent as far as I can tell. I completely agree about needing specifics to crystalise around which is why the name of the establishment game would be to avoid specifics entirely or to sow nurture a few misleading ones.

Edited by Nuggets Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It more often than not takes an enormous amount of time and energy for paradigm shifts to play out.

Can't remember where I read it but some historian once said the French revolution (in his opinion) started in 1789 and only ended in 1871 (Franco-Prussian war).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It more often than not takes an enormous amount of time and energy for paradigm shifts to play out.

Can't remember where I read it but some historian once said the French revolution (in his opinion) started in 1789 and only ended in 1871 (Franco-Prussian war).

In a similar vein, some historians argue that WW1 isn't properly over yet.

edit: the Russian revolution, the collapse and partition of the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires, European power bleeding away from self-inflicted wounds, these events are still playing themselves out.

Indeed (my father wrote a book about it in the '60s). The difference is that people aren't fighting back against a largely social abstract; they're responding to an unavoidable reality. It isn't going to go away until it's fixed.

For sure. Whether it gets fixed in a relatively benevolent way or a 1920s/30s European way is not so sure impo.

Edited by Nuggets Mahoney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 351 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.