Vote Russell Brand Off The Stage

There is a constant refrain that people do not take responsibility anymore for their actions, nor want to put the hard work in. Ambition has been replaced by the supposed ease of celebrity – that there is a spotlight with your name on it, you just need to find that stage where it shines for you to be a star. Forget that whether you want to be a number one selling artist or a rocket scientist you need talent, dedication, and hard work. Desire to make dreams come true is not enough, and no matter how much effort you put in you may never earn the pay off.

20131025-000012.jpg

For Russell Brand, this eventual pay off eventually came from being prepared to do anything – such as in a pub toilet to jerk a man off and then being jerked off in turn for a documentary in 2002 – showing that such a hands on approach to climbing up the greasy poll to achieve Celebrity A status can be useful. An earned status which ten years later means on set Russell can allegedly get away with harassing a wardrobe assistant into flashing her breasts at him. Because what matters is the film, dignity can go hang – this is showbiz – so reach for the stars and get your tits out for a grinning toss pot.

The cheeky chappy trickster continues to get away with not being pulled up on his behaviour – see Paxman video above. Recently editing The New Statesman Brand begins:

When I was asked to edit an issue of the New Statesman I said yes because it was a beautiful woman asking me. I chose the subject of revolution because the New Statesman is a political magazine and imagining the overthrow of the current political system is the only way I can be enthused about politics.

The irony is because the capitalist system recognises the Brand image that sells movies, DvDs and magazines a business minded woman who understands the word profit (unlike Brand) will therefore employ a sexually harassing degenerate irresponsible jack ass. People cheer his rant against the system, and he gets away with it as a loveable rogue.

20131025-000947.jpg

His mind numbing crass outlook on life is so lapped up Brand can tell us we have no responsibility because we are all going on instinct.

These problems that threaten to bring on global destruction are the result of legitimate human instincts gone awry, exploited by a dead ideology derived from dead desert myths. Fear and desire are the twin engines of human survival but with most of our basic needs met these instincts are being engaged to imprison us in an obsolete fragment of our consciousness. Our materialistic consumer culture relentlessly stimulates our desire. Our media ceaselessly engages our fear, our government triangulates and administrates, ensuring there are no obstacles to the agendas of these slow-thighed beasts, slouching towards Bethlehem.

Forget responsibility, like voting or trying to make democracy work better. Take drugs because it is a social disease, a genetic spiritual hole – so do not feel you have a responsibility for the lives you turned upside down due to your addiction. Instead let us all awaken the spiritual revolution from within:

The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and in – clusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation.

So don’t vote is Brand’s answer. Which must be a shame for The Natural Law Party who had been speaking this nonsense for a decade about consciousness and social cohesion.

They never managed to get beyond a tenth of a percent at elections and wound themselves up as an electoral party in 2003. The alternative spiritual response to the political system has no resonance at the polls – so no wonder Brand does not advocate voting.

Instead he argues for an emotionally engaged holistic antipathy to non involvement in democracy. It makes no sense unless you believe that conscious cosmic frequency creates an energy to change society if you are open minded enough. It should be obvious he is trying to mentally jerk us all off.

20131025-000543.jpg

I am reminded when Terry Wogan interviewed David Icke. The audience were laughing and Wogan pointed out they were laughing at him not with him. I could hear that laughter again when Brand said:

I spoke of my belief that change could only come from within. “I’d like to be a spiritual orator . . .” I said grandly.

My twitter feed suggests some are still laughing with Russell. Myself, I think it is time for serious action inside the political system itself. Eddie Izzard has it right to be involved from within, engaged to make things change.

For only when those in power are those that hold our values can democracy truly reflect us – and if you want that it needs your talent, dedication and hard work.

It also needs your vote. You cannot just desire it.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Advertisements

12 Comments

Filed under atheism, British Politics, British Society, Humour, politics, Religion

12 responses to “Vote Russell Brand Off The Stage

  1. layla_murad

    Reblogged this on Desperately Seeking Paradise and commented:
    Demagoguery must end!

  2. One of those times I disagree with you. I find Brand incredibly refreshing, articulate, intelligent, and using his celebrity for something he believes in, I fully support.
    He isn’t arguing for not participating in democracy, or ignoring responsibility. He notes that he’s involved in other ways. The very fact he’s using his celebrity to argue for a change he believes in (and, that I find myself agreeing with), is involving himself in the democratic process in itself, and far from apathy. I’d argue that those who do nothing else to involve themselves in the process, other than vote, are far more apathetic.
    I myself, don’t vote. My choice at an election is always Tory, Labour, Lib Dem. All three reflect a consensus that, as a leftie, I don’t particularly value and I would be thoroughly ashamed of myself for giving my support to the least smelling turd of the bunch. Nor do I value a system that requires a £500 deposit for someone to stand for election, thereby instantly discarding ordinary people (unless wealthy) from standing. I do however still participate, by writing, and by getting involved with local groups. That in itself is participating in the democratic process.
    I think Russell Brand is great. I disagree with you that he’s only got to where he is today by wanking off a bloke in a toilet (Got to be honest, that episode entertained me). Nor am I going to take a Sun article at face value. His stand-up clearly has a massive market across the World (I’ve been to a couple of shows because I find him funny, not because…. oh look, there’s that man who wanked someone off in a toilet once!), his films sell millions, and he does much needed and great work with drug addiction charities that have been thoroughly abused by Tory and Labour governments (and thus, those who continue to vote for them) for decades.
    The Clash, The Jam etc weren’t advocating voting Labour…. they were advocating revolution. They were using their artform, for political change. As were plenty of authors throughout the years. Brand’s art form is his comedy, and he’s using that art form to the same effect. I fully condone it, and hope he continues.

    • David Cameron is a Smiths fan but I do not see that reflected in his policies. Pop stars capture a mood, and can be used in slogans on the streets and to endure the grind of daily life. Thank goodness the Labour movement rejected spiritual change from within instead wanting material change for the poverty stricken working poor.

      Living standards have only ever risen when people have demanded it within the political system. The welfare state happened because of universal suffrage being a reality. Don’t vote or always vote the same no matter what, do not be surprised if you do not count to politicans.

      I point out Brand rejects materialism, and I feared when I joked on twitter that Brand wanted David Icke’s job this is what is happening. Cleverly he does not offer an alternative, he taps into our disappointments and sense of justice with platitudes worthy of a secondary school debating chamber. Good on sentiment but lacking the details.

      Brand encourages a spiritual antipathy to the political process – yet being involved within the political system allowed the labour movement to make huge strides in improving the welfare of ordinary people.

      We must not ever forget that ordinary people acting together changes things. But if you want to change the wallpaper and the people walking the corridors of Westminster you need to get stuck in – and voting is the least you can do to make that change.

      • But you’re offering nothing either. Just nice sentiment. “If you want to change the wallpaper…..”
        I don’t. I want a brand new wall. How do I do that with my choice being three Parties that don’t reflect my views? I refuse to empower either two centre-right parties, or a very right winged party. “The least I can do”, is to empower none of them and get involved in other ways.

        “Living standards have only ever risen when people have demanded it within the political system.”
        – Yes. But not simply by voting. Mainly, by direct action and pressure. Including protests, article writing, charity drives and the spread of information etc. Brand isn’t telling people not to be involved democratically, he’s absolutely right to suggest there are other ways – and often more effective ways – to be involved. I don’t see a problem with that.

        ” he taps into our disappointments and sense of justice with platitudes worthy of a secondary school debating chamber.”
        – Maybe so. Again, I see no problem with this. He highlights the issues, the way he knows how to, and if it sparks political interest in just one new person who otherwise wouldn’t be interested, finding it a World of old grey haired men in suits…. then that’s a positive thing. In a very fast paced World, not everyone – in fact, hardly anyone – has the time or patience to read in depth analysis that come to basically the same conclusion as Brand but with more ‘specialised’ language (Prof. David Harvey, for example).

        Brand specifically mentions a highly socialised system based on heavy taxation of corporate power. Whether he’s right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. Also, I don’t think we can get his entire view point and ideas, from a ten minute interview with Paxman. His articles over the years give a far greater insight into his thoughts than one interview, and I think they should be taken together. He is better at articulating his thoughts in writing than in an interview.

      • I have argued for mass engagement within the political system. Find a candidate you would want to represent you and get them to stand, stand yourself. Written about that over the years.

        I am in large part replying to Brand’s New Statesman article not the Paxman interview. I would prefer Eddie Izzard’s kind of activism running for office to a sexual harasser who wants to be a spiritual orator on the media circuit

        I don’t buy that from the church, nor from celebrity comedians. Each to their own I guess.

      • How many people from impoverished backgrounds do you think can 1) find £500 to stand for election. And 2) Compete against the massive funding power of the parties?
        So again, who do I vote for if I want that to change? If voting is going to change the system from within…. in 2015, who do I vote for?

      • I’d suggest local politics first – but you need to convince ordinary people you are worth supporting via dropping leaflets, financing you or their vote.

        If you cannot, than the people alas have spoken. Which is why I guess people prefer dreams of revolution to winning hearts and minds to actually change things via the political system.

        Still Brand had one positive effect on me – I’m rejoining the Labour Party to fight for the Rawlsian social justice I believe in – rather than shouting just in the sidelines as a commentator.

  3. I have never understood the public’s fascination with this man. There are many reasons I dislike him. The pseudo-philosophical codswallop he vomits out. There’s the “Everybody look at me”, trying too hard to be cool, way he styles himself (Which, IMHO is very un-cool. People who display this level of narcissistic, attention grabbing are probably best ignored.) There’s the about to spit expression he always wears on his face. It’s a cross between arrogance and disgust. Then the voice. The cinder under a door, nails down a blackboard, screech that makes my teeth itch. Then, there’s the way appeared on the public consciousness by sleeping with people more famous than himself, rather than doing anything of note. I would suggest he’d be being interviewed by Jeremy Kyle, rather than Paxman, lyif he or his sexual partners weren’t famous. Most egregiously of all he starred in a remake of “My Favourite Year.” This should’ve been outlawed. The results were predictably crass and un-funny. Of course, this is all subjective. Many people seem to like him, and (bafflingly) find him funny. I apologise for for the lengthy ramble. I suppose I should have just said “He rubs me up the wrong way.”

    • I get you – watching “Arthur” made me miss Dudley Moore even more.

      His pronouncements are not new, original or even at times coherent. Not voting has been around for ages – and that has not changed anything.

      Willingness of voters to change who they vote for might just make politicians more attentive to the people. It’s this anti-tribal loyalty which has made me reluctant to rejoin a political party. Reason I do not consider myself a partisan political apparatchik.

      Politicians ideally should never be in a position to take voter support for granted.

      • Exactly. Keep them on their toes, and worried. “When the government fears the people.” &c.

        I’d forgotten they re-made Arthur. Is Mr Brand trying to rival Mark Wahlberg as the spectacularly miscast re-make king?

  4. Scott Reilly

    This is refreshing reading. I was beginning to think that the whole world had gone mad, fawning over Brand like they are.

    It’s so distressing that people actually look to this cabbage for leadership and advice. But to be honest, we invite this kind of disaster on ourselves. Wasn’t it just last year he was invited to appear before a parliamentary committee and lecture them on drug policy. As if he has anything noteworthy to say on any subject.

    If we go to know-nothing, designer-hippies looking for guidance then we deserve whatever dysfunctional society we get

  5. Pingback: Mo Shafiq Withdraws Support From Joint Statement – Jesus and Mo Cartoon | Homo economicus' Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s