PDA

View Full Version : brand vs paxman



luka
28-10-2013, 05:36 PM
did you think anything of that?

HMGovt
28-10-2013, 06:56 PM
did you think anything of that?

Yes, it was entertaining. No-one's burnt down parliament yet though so I think the moment has passed. As you were.
How to topple this shower of bastards? I think when the Queen gives the nod to the mob it'll be entrails for nooses by sundown.

blacktulip
28-10-2013, 07:24 PM
Neither of these two merit your attention.

Local Authority
28-10-2013, 07:42 PM
Good PR but he pretty much re-iterated and obfuscated his point under dicky prose. He wasn't being clever.

*edit* haven't actually watched the brand v pax but did read half of the editorial for the new statesman

I do find the viewpoint that those excluded from the system don't care about politics and that's why they don't vote to be horribly patronizing and one without any factual basis. The majority of people I met around the time of the election who were 'excluded' did vote. He's as out of touch as the politicians he berates.

When a facebook campaign arose to get Russell Brand in power, someone duly noted, who should vote for him if he's against voting.

HMGovt
28-10-2013, 07:59 PM
Good PR but he pretty much re-iterated and obfuscated his point under dicky prose. He wasn't being clever.

Your sig link's fucked

Local Authority
28-10-2013, 08:23 PM
Your sig link's fucked

cheers, fixed

HMGovt
28-10-2013, 08:30 PM
I'm guessing what he has in mind is a gleeful and mischievous occupation of Westminster, flowers down gun barrels, culture jamming, elimination of the ruling classes presumed mandate by non-participation rather than another antiquated folded ballot paper election.

Local Authority
28-10-2013, 09:58 PM
Its a stance which has been taken up by anarchists for a while now, one which was gaining momentum until the government started using anti-terror laws to spy on them.

Turnout has steadily decreased, with it being 65% at the last election which I don't feel is wholly representative. It may also show that the majority of people feel disenfranchised with modern politics.

Non-voting isn't the solution though, because it allows unrepresentative parliaments to take power. For all of his talk, he doesn't actually have a plan for after the revolution, which leads me to believe its just incendiary rhetoric. For what little I know, I can say that the problem with politics isn't the actual democratic system, its a problem that's entrenched in the houses of parliament and its archaic structure. No one, not even Brand, is attempting to root it out or address it.

luka
29-10-2013, 10:08 AM
i thought it was interesting for a number of reasons. brand was repeatedly knocked out of his flow and confidence by paxman. paxman represents something. he represents the dominant paradigm. he represents authority and common sense and everyone feels the power of those things and there were moments were brand was knocked backwards by it and made little retreats into as pax man says facetiousness. i dont think brand is funny but he is in some senses real. it was a clash between two principles. i dont think everyone advocating revolution need have a detailed plan of who exactly is going to collect the rubbish. i dont think it works that way. you need first of all to have enough people convinced of the need for revolution. revolution should create chaos not replace on order with another. no one knows what the revolution will bring about. thats not to say its not worth thinking about just that its ridiculous to dismiss a revolutionary becasue he doesnt have an model of utiopia fully formed in his brain box. the first thing is to create the conditions for revolution which means first convince people of the need for it and second convince people of not just its possibility but its inevitability. that 'we' cant lose. i thought it was a very interesting piece of telly for all sorts of reasons. as a duel between two domineering personalities and enormous egos, a clash of styles, a clash of types, a clash of ideas. i thought it was wonderful. neither man is a hero of mine but styles make fights and this was a good one. i dont think nick cohens response to it was credible.

luka
29-10-2013, 10:11 AM
there is something new coming into the world. when i say brand is in some sense real the realness lies in his ability to anticipate the coming change. he feels it. hm govt was disappointed it didnt happen as soon as the banking crisis pulled aside the curtain, so was i but i think something will still happen and i think manning, assange, greenwald and snowdon are all signposts on the way regardless of their personal failings. they are pointing to something. they are tremors which precede an earthquake.

Mr. Tea
29-10-2013, 10:15 AM
For what little I know, I can say that the problem with politics isn't the actual democratic system, its a problem that's entrenched in the houses of parliament and its archaic structure. No one, not even Brand, is attempting to root it out or address it.

This may have something to do with problems that are specific to the UK but we're hardly the only nominally democratic country to be run by a bunch of corrupt shits who are busy serving the vested interests of a small minority while screwing over damn near everyone else.

Edit: I really hope luka's right but I'm afraid the powers that be have access to technologies that makes it possible to monitor and control people in ways the great tyrannies of the past could only dream of, and there's this vast distracting glut of material possessions and entertainment like there never has been before. Maybe that's a cowardly thing to say but I think it can't be ignored. This isn't France in 1789 or Russia in 1917, there are different challenges.

you
29-10-2013, 10:39 AM
Some are really into Brand on this. I feel he has highlighted a major class and political divide. However, Paxman is the real touch paper... asking "What gives you the right?" This question reveals an awful lot about UK politics and class.

Local Authority
29-10-2013, 11:01 AM
as i said before, this is subject wherein my toes are dipped into the pool so please correct me if i'm wrong.

if you look at previous revolutions, they have all failed because there hasn't been a defining ideology underpinning. the common thread is, remove these people from power and so they fail. we do not live in a tyranny in the way that syria or libya or egypt is however the 2 party power structure endemic to ours and many western politics could be seen as tyrannical as their views hover ever closer. someone please explain to me the motifs behind previous revolutions, russia, algiers etc

as much as ive tried to see the inherent problems it ends in swings and roundabouts, the media is as much part of the problem as the politics. the media has one agenda, its own, and both parties try to pander which dilutes the politics. as well theres an ever growing old guard, out of touch and increasingly forceful.

the problem with brand is that his beliefs are not substantial and in themselves are not revolutionary, the cynic that i am i cant help but see this as a cynical attempt to get pr, especially from young people. which will inevitably tally up as money in the bank come his next tv show or film. the black bloc circa 2009 had an idea but were criminalised. its good someone is drawing attention to this (but didn't we all know anyway)

Local Authority
29-10-2013, 11:03 AM
the class and political divide was highlighted before brand mentioned it. the excluded knew they were excluded and the rich knew they were excluded, its just the middle class yapping on twitter over a glass of wine who didn't.

whether or not the 'revolution' will be on the ground, we'll have to see

you
29-10-2013, 11:07 AM
the class and political divide was highlighted before brand mentioned it. the excluded knew they were excluded and the rich knew they were excluded, its just the middle class yapping on twitter over a glass of wine who didn't.

whether or not the 'revolution' will be on the ground, we'll have to see

Could you point me towards a decent mainstream instance where such a divide was highlighted. The riots obviously were not.

luka
29-10-2013, 11:10 AM
i think this was clearly wonderfully symbolic and as you says, it was on the best possible platform. he's even called pax man. you couldnt make it up. (even if you could be cynical and talk about brand and a pr stunt.)

you
29-10-2013, 11:14 AM
also... to tag on to this:

"its good someone is drawing attention to this (but didn't we all know anyway)"

drawing attention to peoples political apathy is not a new thing, nothing to shout about there... but drawing attention to how the ruling classes assume (and pedal such an assumption) they ought to be ruling and assume political apathy is a symptom of laziness and disconnected from their (the powerful's) positions is a newer thing. This was half of Brand's argument, political apathy is caused by the rulers.... this is one of the ideas that the ruling elite do very at repressing...via positing P.A. as a symptom of inbred WC idleness or poor education...this appalling elitist view was exemplified by the snorts of Paxman....

you
29-10-2013, 11:25 AM
I'd agree with luka in that it is symbolic, I don't feel Brand himself will make any change. But is is fascinating to see the platform highlight an apathetic political view asking the question of the establishment -
"Aren't you to blame for my apathy?"
"No we have told you a million times - no!"

It just really shed a light on the very core of the rulers double bluffing democracy, they manoeuvre so that the majority have little agency and become disillusioned... then blame the disillusionment on said people. As politically responsible members of the ruling class under a democratic system the first priority ought to be political engagement... absurdly, this has been re-formatted to be seen as not just not their problem, but a short fall of the people they extort from and control.

Under the austerity thumbscrews (that even the IMF brand as nonsensical) put in place by the tory party that took 36% of a 65% turnout highlighting the elites assumptions and strategies around apathy is potent stuff.

Mr. Tea
29-10-2013, 12:24 PM
It's a bit rich for the political class to lambast the proles for their apathy when apathy is clearly what they thrive on. Large-scale abstinence from voting is only going to perpetuate the status quo, which is exactly what they want. If large numbers of people suddenly lost their apathy and got very engaged, the result could be at the very least the re-election of a genuinely socialist, pre-Blair-style Labour government, if not a full-on revolution. So really they're blaming the public for behaving in precisely the way they want them to.

you
29-10-2013, 12:28 PM
It's a bit rich for the political class to lambast the proles for their apathy when apathy is clearly what they thrive on. Large-scale abstinence from voting is only going to perpetuate the status quo, which is exactly what they want. If large numbers of people suddenly lost their apathy and got very engaged, the result could be at the very least the re-election of a genuinely socialist, pre-Blair-style Labour government, if not a full-on revolution. So really they're blaming the public for behaving in precisely the way they want them to.

it just doesn't bear thinking about!

Dusty
29-10-2013, 02:00 PM
I really don't think anything can or will happen to the political elite until the current financial system implodes upon itself. Only when the dollar is worthless- dragging the rest of the world with it and thousands are dead from food and power riots will we see new systems grow in the spaces left behind. Things must get far, far worse before there are alternatives, and even then it may not be 'better'.

And Brand is so lazy, he didn't even have names of people more educated than himself on political change to suggest when pushed by Paxman for examples of who to follow. Yet he had just edited the NS issue that contains articles on the very subject.

mrfaucet
29-10-2013, 02:11 PM
The world that fell apart at the end of the 1970s had begun to unravel much earlier in the decade, in the succession of crises that included the demise of Bretton Woods, the Arab-Israeli war, the consequent oil shock and a world-wide recession. That confused and confusing period turned out to be the dawn of neoliberalism, though it wasn’t until much later that it became clear what had happened. Now that neoliberal order is stumbling through its own succession of crises. We are barely five years into the unravelling, if that is what is taking place. At the same stage of the previous upheaval the protagonists in Caryl’s book were still labouring in relative obscurity. If you had told someone at the start of 1975 that the architects of the new age were going to be the MP for Finchley, the bishop of Krakow, the exiled ayatollah and the ostracised apparatchik, you would have been laughed at. Apart from anything, they looked so powerless. So we shouldn’t be surprised if we can’t yet spot who is going to make the difference this time round. What we’re waiting for is the counter-counter-revolution, led by progressives who have learned the lessons from the age of neoliberalism and are unafraid to make use of its instruments in order to overthrow them. Plenty have started trying. Someone will get there in the end and maybe by the end of the decade we will discover who. But it is unlikely to be anyone near a position of power right now.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n18/david-runciman/counter-counter-revolution

A British comedian who lives in Hollywood?

droid
29-10-2013, 02:19 PM
It's a bit rich for the political class to lambast the proles for their apathy when apathy is clearly what they thrive on. Large-scale abstinence from voting is only going to perpetuate the status quo, which is exactly what they want. If large numbers of people suddenly lost their apathy and got very engaged, the result could be at the very least the re-election of a genuinely socialist, pre-Blair-style Labour government, if not a full-on revolution. So really they're blaming the public for behaving in precisely the way they want them to.

And in the way the system is designed to make them feel. Atomised and necrotised. I think it's becoming more and more acceptable to state the bloody obvious without being branded as some kind of marxist crusty student vegan.

crackerjack
29-10-2013, 08:03 PM
Turnout has steadily decreased, with it being 65% at the last election which I don't feel is wholly representative. It may also show that the majority of people feel disenfranchised with modern politics.


FWIW, turnout has increased in last 2 elections from the 2001 low of 59%. http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm


I can say that the problem with politics isn't the actual democratic system, its a problem that's entrenched in the houses of parliament and its archaic structure.

What do you mean by this? The 2-party system? The Lords? Black Rod and the rest of the silly rituals?


if you look at previous revolutions, they have all failed because there hasn't been a defining ideology underpinning...someone please explain to me the motifs behind previous revolutions, russia, algiers etc


Hang on, you're not seriously suggesting the Russian Revolution had no defining ideology?

craner
29-10-2013, 09:03 PM
I just watched this to see what all the noise is about. K-Punk is posting long class war screeds in defence of this verbose lothario all over Facebook and has started hanging out with Laura Oldfield Ford, so I figured something must be up.

A lot of nonsense. Sad, really. Symbolic or in reality, ultimately meaningless. Literally a tantrum.

The word revolution is probably abused; if not, then we are talking about anarchy and nihilism, revolutions of a limited and dangerous kind. The offshoot of this “event” amongst the far-left Theory community is a new (or freshly articulated) acceptance of destruction and criminality as method, tactic and strategy because protest has failed to perform adequately. The London Riots on a larger scale is the model, here. Fine, but that is just nihilism. Take this to its logical conclusion and you have to start thinking about civil war.

Being a mild republican, I occasionally ponder the meaning of this conviction and if it can ever really be acted upon. Members of Republic, the anti-monarchy organisation, are pleasant and sensible people and never explicitly contemplate the implications of what they want. The British Monarchy would not dissolve itself. It would not be without civilian allies if it was put in the position of being threatened or overthrown. Furthermore, the Armed Forces pledge allegiance to the Queen, not Parliament, and bear arms on behalf of the Kingdom, not the Commons or the people. A republican revolution would be a genuine democratic revolution with aims and principles and clearer outcomes, but would not be un-resisted. The question then, is: is it really worth it? Who would be prepared to pay the ultimate price, which would be civil war? What would it actually achieve and lead to? These are not necessarily questions from another century.

Or: massive taxation or penalisation of big business. Is this anti-monopoly, anti-globalisation, anti-free trade or anti-business? What about alternative models to, say, neo-liberal privatised utilities? Like local nationalised models in Scotland and Northern Ireland, or the alternative model embodied by Welsh Water, a private non-shareholder utility company that is able to drive its profits back into long-term infrastructure improvements and progressive tariffs and debt write-offs for low-income families and disabled people? Welsh Water thrives in a democratic system, working with regional government, local authorities and Third Sector organisations.

A problem with these rhetorical purveyors of revolutionary violence is their unwillingness to credit (or their lack of knowledge of) progressive drudge stuff, like social policy. I was at the dinner table of a millionaire accountant at the weekend who thinks that non-means tested disability benefits should be scrapped because she decided not to claim them for her Downs Syndrome daughter, and that the Minimum Wage should be abolished because it means she can’t afford to hire said daughter on her farm and is therefore, obviously, anti-business. There are some important arguments and battles to be had at the level of parliamentary legislation, lobbying and policy design (and at dinner tables) but this stuff is, unfortunately, a little dull for some of our revolutionary warriors with a taste for the Symbolic.

There is a difference, even a chasm, between Labour and Conservative welfare and health care reform which is this: the Tories want to reform these things because they want to minimise state intervention and taxation; Labour want to reform the welfare state and NHS to save it and extend it. The rest is electoral tactics: democratic politics. The argument is with those who have lost belief in democratic politics, but they should at least be clear and honest about what they are prepared to lose and potentially sanction.

If this posturing is not simply ill-thought out or conditional then it is as root a taste for chaos, an impulsive nihilism, and indirectly (in some cases directly) anti-democratic. As far as Brand’s answers are concerned, he promiscuously veers between anger at globalisation and disillusion with the way British political parties are funded. Ultimately, in the UK context, this zeros in on Labour, who can only exist on an unstable base of donations from Trade Unions (or affiliated members) and sympathetic businessmen like Lord Sainsbury. This has something serious to do with the collapse of mass membership, both for the Tories and Labour. But Brand does not address this thorny issue outside of an airy reference to general disillusionment, although he is not honest enough to mention that this has a lot to do with a hostility to mass immigration and the welfare state, as much as cronyism and city bankers. The agenda is driven by media distortions, here. Instead, outside of revolutionary upheaval, Brand appears to be advocating a global and unaccountable technocracy dedicated to saving the planet from ecological disaster and wealth inequality. The ends may be utopian but the means are decidedly sinister.

He compares the decoration of the House of Commons to Eton and so concludes that every MP must be ruling class or complicit in a class conspiracy, which slanders the majority of politicians who have nothing to do with such fantasies. I can merely think of a few of the ones that I like, such as Ann Clwyd, Dave Anderson and Frank Field, to refute this preposterous claim without going any further into it. Many people vote for an MP, AM or councillor because they realise that it can make a real difference on a local level, but also nationally (for example, the recent vote against military options in Syria). To junk this is to junk democracy as a viable political alternative and you are then sailing into dangerous waters and this is not something to be blithe or vague about.

Mr. Tea
29-10-2013, 09:42 PM
The offshoot of this “event” amongst the far-left Theory community is a new (or freshly articulated) acceptance of destruction and criminality as method, tactic and strategy because protest has failed to perform adequately.

I'm not sure this is fair. If protest has "failed" it's because it has been made criminal - at least, in all but its politest and most untroublesome, and obviously therefore pointless, form. It's not as if protestors spontaneously decided they had to start smashing things in order to get noticed without the state having any influence on this situation. If you can be arrested for doing more or less anything, or even virtually nothing, why not get arrested for doing something that's actually disruptive?

craner
29-10-2013, 10:00 PM
There's a difference between being arrested for protesting against a greivance and purposefully indulging in criminal damage to a building under the guise of revolutionary action, which any protester can reasonably be expected to be charged for under existing criminal laws.

craner
29-10-2013, 10:17 PM
Also, they have recourse to courts of law, and if they cannot afford representation, then that is an argument about cuts to and provision of legal aid, which is a parliamentary, democratic battle.

luka
29-10-2013, 10:23 PM
The London Riots on a larger scale is the model, here. Fine, but that is just nihilism.

i think this attitude is why you are a clever man that is always wrong about everything.

luka
29-10-2013, 10:24 PM
you think that rationalism matter, you think inidividuals and personalities are important. you think the fact that assange is a narcissit and brand an exhibitionist is important.

luka
29-10-2013, 10:25 PM
you cant see people and events as just grass which bends in the direction the wind is blowing. the correct way to look at the riots and at brand paxman is as an indication of the way the wind is blowing.

luka
29-10-2013, 10:39 PM
if its destruction time then you will get destruction. if its chaos time you will get chaos.

craner
29-10-2013, 10:49 PM
But you don't mind my cannons when I am aiming them at conceptual art.

luka
30-10-2013, 07:49 AM
no i like them a lot then

luka
30-10-2013, 07:51 AM
all im saying i suppose is that there is a feeling, which may not be justified in you view, that a) the current tools we have are not suitable for the job in hand and b)that there has been a concerted effort from those at the top of the pyramid to roll back the gains made by the base since the end of the war. that that has gone too far to be tolerated.

luka
30-10-2013, 07:54 AM
that global problems need global solutions, for example. your friend nomad, despite her fondness for science thought global warming was a hoax, but a lot of other people are worried that the scientists might be right. that's one thing among many.

luka
30-10-2013, 07:55 AM
sometimes something changes and something that was previously tolerated becomes unacceptable. there is not usually a revolution or a civil war as a result, but there is a dramatic change.

luka
30-10-2013, 08:00 AM
sometimes the correct response to an intolerable situation is a tantrum. having a fusty debate inside your own head acheives nothing becasue nobody is asking for your opinion anyway. the feedback loop is not there. the terms of the contract need renegotiating.

craner
30-10-2013, 08:59 AM
Now you're just waffling.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2013, 09:29 AM
your friend nomad, despite her fondness for science thought global warming was a hoax, but a lot of other people are worried that the scientists might be right.

What, really? That surprises me.

luka
30-10-2013, 10:38 AM
you can talk look how long and rambling your post was

luka
30-10-2013, 10:40 AM
it was so long that i have to admit i didnt actually read most of it

craner
30-10-2013, 10:49 AM
I was only just getting into a Burkean stride. I had to stop myself.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2013, 11:48 AM
it was so long that i have to admit i didnt actually read most of it

Aww, then you probably missed the bit about the millionaire accountant criticizing the minimal wage over dinner.

craner
30-10-2013, 04:16 PM
I don't just insert these juicy morsels for your entertainment, Oliver.

craner
30-10-2013, 04:21 PM
There is a contradiction in Brand: on the one hand he finds democratic politics disenfranchising and really boooooring, and on the other he wants a global government which would by definition be disenfrachising and certainly extremely boring if the deliberations of the EU and UN are anything to go by.

craner
30-10-2013, 04:26 PM
Democratic politics is, largely, boring. Introducing the mimimum wage was boring work. Designing social security benefits is mind-numbingly tedious. But these things are essential and change peoples' lives and stop some from going under.

Politics is also about limits and compromise and when it isn't somebody has to be oppressed.

crackerjack
30-10-2013, 07:20 PM
Well at least some good's come of it – we've got a new member (http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there).

craner
30-10-2013, 08:38 PM
Heartening. It's particularly grotesque when young people without families or disabilities or jobs or money have been the very people who have lost most from welfare reform under New Labour and the Coalition (and I say this as a New Labour partisan). Universal benefits for pensioners were not quite as well-intentioned as claimed. They did solve an important problem that existed into the 90s of the destitute and neglected elderly (but not the most fundamental problem, which is the erosion of family responsibilty and social atomisation) but they effectively sucked money from the support structures of the working-age, single poor, or whatever money there was for them (or could have been). This is to a large degree a naked and easy vote-winner, only exacerbated by voter apathy amongst the young. This will be far worse very soon, if the last Tory conference is any indicator. Engagement, therefore, is very, very important.

If Brand really wants a revolution then extreme slashing of the welfare state and minimal taxation will be the quickest way to get what he wants, as people starve and homeless shelters and food banks spread across the Kingdom. If he wants to improve social security and social mobility for the poor, he could do far worse in every respect than urging people to vote Labour and even join the party. Or even vote for anybody. The Greens won Brighton last time, and Galloway won in Bethnal Green once. It makes a difference, even in very small ways. Even on the level of local councils. Brand may be clever chap, but he is so bored by politics in the UK that I don't believe he truly understands how it actually works. Like Luke, it's all just fucking details to him; where's the romance, the grand drama, the flames? For somebody who is getting so much press for his ideas about discarding British parliamentary democracy, this is a bit of a problem.

luka
30-10-2013, 08:59 PM
you sound like my dad, but a lot more pompous.

craner
30-10-2013, 09:07 PM
Your Dad was probably right. I don't know, I only met him once and our conversation went "Hello." "Hello."

It is not good enough to call for revolution on the grand platforms of the BBC and New Statesman editorial board, but when asked for an alternative to lay back defensively in his chair and squeal, "I don't know! It's not my job to have the answers!" Who's going to administer the council housing lists in this post-democracy utopia? He can get back to us when he has an answer.

luka
30-10-2013, 09:13 PM
have i told you how my dad was converted?

luka
30-10-2013, 09:16 PM
he was participating in a student lock in or occupation or whatever they were called. a lecturer there asked to be admitted. he was let in and was so terrified he had visibly pissed his pants but despite that stood in front of the students and talked lucidly and earnestly about why he believed parliamentary democracy and liberal humanism were the the least worst way of doing things. ralph was so impressed by the speech and the mans timid courage that he was converted. im being sentimental because it halloween was my dads birthday.

luka
30-10-2013, 09:17 PM
i always liked that story.

craner
30-10-2013, 09:19 PM
That's a nice story.

luka
30-10-2013, 09:20 PM
for the record though i have never voted. in mitigation my vote would never have counted because i am from newham. perhaps if it had i would of. but as it stands i havent.

craner
30-10-2013, 09:26 PM
It's a bit of a faff getting registered.

luka
30-10-2013, 09:28 PM
i wouldnt know. in australia its illegal not to vote.

luka
30-10-2013, 09:29 PM
the rugby league world cup is on.

craner
30-10-2013, 09:48 PM
I'm conflicted about the Australia thing, but not totally against it.

I watched League all Saturday. It's good but a bit repetative.

In Welsh Union news, Mike Phillips has just been sacked from Bayonne for turning up drunk to a training session. I must admit, I felt some sympathy. Plus, I like him. He's a hustling, aggressive gypsy-ish Carmarthan rat who looks like an extra from a Leone movie.

You have to recognise that Wales are the most exciting Northern Hemisphere side now. Justin Tipuric alone is sensational, and he can't even be assured of a place. George North is ripping through the English League. The Welsh clearly won the Lions tour for everybody else.

luka
30-10-2013, 09:52 PM
i recogonise it. i also recognise it that there is serious drug use facilitating that.

craner
30-10-2013, 10:02 PM
Yeah, booze.

luka
30-10-2013, 10:05 PM
massive systematic performance enchancing drug regime

craner
30-10-2013, 10:20 PM
Welsh rugby players couldn't even cope with the Latin, let alone queue up for injections. (Apart from Dr. Jamie Roberts, now a Parisian sophisticate, driving around on his scooter, eating croissants with a foppish neck-scarf swathed beneath his Dan Dare chin.)

Another reason I like Phillips is that he ditched Duffy for the golden promise of French tarts, which is both reprensible and impressive. Now he is hurt and out of a contract he is going to be an animal in the Autumn season. I can't wait.

It's a shame we're not facing the Black Death in this state, with the Welsh clubs in crisis and Lions fame pumping through the arteries. It will be a Red Mist for anybody brave enough to enter Cardiff.

luka
30-10-2013, 10:27 PM
they wont even beat the 'quantas wallabies' you dont keep up with southern hempishere rugby but you will be appalled at what SA bring to the table. im looking forward to it immensely.

craner
30-10-2013, 10:28 PM
Just to re-cap for those (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJMuEDuVi58) who wonder what we are talking about.

luka
31-10-2013, 07:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qktn-g6P4qk
if the springboks dont win by 20 points or more i'll be very impressed with the taffies.

luka
01-11-2013, 11:05 AM
In response to said article;
Not because A, B, C, D not because POLITICS, ECONOMICS, CULTURE, TECHNOLOGY.
A, B, C, D are not the cause.
A, B, C, D are the grass which makes wind visible.

Which way is the wind blowing? Watch the grass.

Happens because happening is what happens. Do I make myself clear? Below the surface manifestations, a current which can be seen in all things it moves through.

this is the basis for all divination
yours

The editor thanks you for your letter - if it is selected for publication it will most likely appear in the forthcoming issue of the magazine. Please ensure that you have included an address which we can include alongside your name.

Camilla Swift
The Spectator
22 Old Queen Street
London SW1H 9HP

shiels
01-11-2013, 04:46 PM
I just watched this to see what all the noise is about. K-Punk is posting long class war screeds in defence of this verbose lothario all over Facebook and has started hanging out with Laura Oldfield Ford, so I figured something must be up.
.

can I read Kpunk's take on it anywhere?

Sick Boy
02-11-2013, 05:27 AM
Luka's first few posts put this as eloquently and reliably as I have come to expect from him. He has always recognized the spirit and taste of a thing being worth more than the quabble and that's why he remains important here long after it's had its day. Cheers luka.

luka
02-11-2013, 04:42 PM
aw thanks mate thats very touching

Sectionfive
03-11-2013, 04:45 AM
can I read Kpunk's take on it anywhere?

search 'vampire castle' on twitter lol

HMGovt
03-11-2013, 09:22 AM
search 'vampire castle' on twitter lol

Does he really live in Loughborough these days?

HMGovt
03-11-2013, 11:51 PM
I'm watching it again, it still stands up. There's precedent for this in Italy, to some degree, with Beppe Grillo and his Five Star party. But in addition to this, advocating that people express their political will by not voting has an interesting consequence that the large constituency that won't vote at the next election, especially if it significantly increases in 2015 as a result of this, could be framed as an explicit vote for Brand or whatever movement develops from this interview.

Even more effective would be a Parallel Election or Dissenter's Election on the same day as the next General Election, with single-use, unique ballot papers printed out by voters at home and posted into Alternatively Official ballot boxes located in pop-up polling stations on street corners and elsewhere. That's the sort of thing social networks were built to facilitate. Abolish the House of Lords and have a bicameral system based on a new House of Everyone with legislative power over the House of Commons. Part of this legislative power would be repeals of oppressive, prescriptive or discriminatory laws, part would be oversight of the tedious 'admin bod' laws MPs enjoy cranking out.

So I'm proposing the revolution would have the desired end state of reforming our democracy in such a way that representation of the entire population became institutionalised and given executive power in a way that leaves the sickening, self-serving theatre of present-day politics utterly impossible. Naturally, the Prime Minister would no longer be a jobbing, spectacularly compromised Fauntleroy like David Cameron but someone able to command the confidence of everyone.

HMGovt
04-11-2013, 11:23 PM
Professor David Nutt was just on Newsnight criticising the irrationality of previous and current Government's drugs policy with a more avuncular and breezy than Russell Brand. It'll be on iPlayer soon, no doubt. Kirsty Wark was conducting the interview rather than Paxman this time, but she showed she can be just as misinformed as he.

He was invited on as he's just picked up a prize for "promoting science and evidence on a matter of public interest, despite facing difficulty and hostility in doing so."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/04/drugs-legislation-david-nutt-john-maddox

shiels
07-11-2013, 02:10 PM
search 'vampire castle' on twitter lol

from what i get there it looks like he caused a stir by accusing feminists of derailing the hype with ad hominem accusations of misogyny?

craner
07-11-2013, 03:17 PM
He's started a project called 'Wounds of Class' as a result. It has a website. If you become his friend on Facebook you will be treated to tons of mini-essays on this subject daily.

On a related note, I just found out that Dan Hancox's literary agent is a woman I worked with and fancied like mad for years. Life is just like an Anthony Powell novel. These are my wounds of class.

luka
07-11-2013, 04:01 PM
that was mos dan on disenssus i think.

craner
07-11-2013, 04:18 PM
If I may be so bold, you could read my comments earlier in this thread, in which I attack some of the points he has put forward, rather than his character.

craner
07-11-2013, 06:33 PM
I don't believe that Brand really wants to be challenged seriously on his points, or if he's as smart as he thinks he is he shouldn't want to. He could be demolished quite quickly. Paxman is easy pickings these days -- he is lazy, complacent, visibly bored by his standing, and not intellectually agile or committed enough to interview properly. Most savvy and articulate politicians can confound or run around his bluff techniques by now as they are too common and not nearly acute enough. Even Bozza LOL LEGEND Johnson can rung rings around his carcass. This personal bankruptcy was clearly demonstrated by an abject performance on the Graham Norton show last week. Watching that painful wreck, it seemed quite obvious that the "serious" media establishment is too scared of not looking "cool" or "edgy" or "radical" to say anything more critical than, "Brand is wrong, but he made some good points." No, he didn't. He was talking bollocks. He had no good points to make about politics. His points, for what they were, barely amounted to points. They were slogans and platitudes. Considered without passion, they simply show that he isn't interested politics. Or, at least, he is only interested in politics on the level of aesthetics and utopias. But anyone hoping for a contemporary Soul of Man Under Socialism or News from Nowhere in his New Statesman essay was surely sorely dissappointed.

As it goes, I ussd to be blissfully indifferent to Brand, and considering that I loathe most British stand-up comics of his generation that is almost saying something positive. Then he started telling poor people not to vote, and I realised he was a cunt.

Edit: also, I reckon that if Brand was effectively challenged in this way then he would, himself, resort to the ad hominem faster than a ferret up Billy Mackenzie's leg.

craner
07-11-2013, 07:03 PM
K-punk recently announced on his Facebook page that he was going to start de-friending "friends" who didn't agree with him because he wanted to make his page a space for like-minded comrades committed to raising class consciousness. So far I have not been culled, but it can only be a matter of time.

craner
07-11-2013, 07:07 PM
Being de-friended on Facebook is the Western Left's 21st Century Terror Famine.

craner
07-11-2013, 07:08 PM
These are dramatic times.

craner
07-11-2013, 07:15 PM
Anybody who has been privately educated, in K-punk's class war world, is objectively, ideologically suspect, no matter what the circumstances (Assisted Place, Scholarship, financial sacrifice on family's part, or if they escaped as soon as they could) and no matter what they have done since. This would include, as far as I know, me, Luke, Matt Ingram and Sufi.

crackerjack
07-11-2013, 09:12 PM
I don't believe that Brand really wants to be challenged seriously on his points, or if he's as smart as he thinks he is he shouldn't want to. He could be demolished quite quickly. Paxman is easy pickings these days -- he is lazy, complacent, visibly bored by his standing, and not intellectually agile or committed enough to interview properly. Most savvy and articulate politicians can confound or run around his bluff techniques by now as they are too common and not nearly acute enough. Even Bozza LOL LEGEND Johnson can rung rings around his carcass.

Sing it, brother.

Wasn't he also recently quizzed on WWI – a subject on which he's just written a book/made a TV series, yet apparently knows fuck all.

There was a point to Paxman once. Now he's as much a product of celebrity culture as Robbie Savage, TV pundit.

craner
07-11-2013, 09:40 PM
Naturally, the Prime Minister would no longer be a jobbing, spectacularly compromised Fauntleroy like David Cameron but someone able to command the confidence of everyone.

Like who? Harold Wilson? Barbara Castle? Ken Clarke? Tony Blair? Lionel Blair? Darcey Bussell?

HMGovt
07-11-2013, 09:51 PM
Like who? Harold Wilson? Barbara Castle? Ken Clarke? Tony Blair? Lionel Blair? Darcey Bussell?

Made your nipples hard, typing that, didn't it?

You missed out David Attenborough, Brian Cox and Brian Cox.

Anyway, what about abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RS92_vnYpw#t=16

craner
07-11-2013, 09:57 PM
although I don't know if anyone who wants in is willing to do it.

Check out the Labour backbenches, or local councils, or other democratic organisations who day in day out work to change things. Like, for example, the Citizens Advice Bureau, who have just made a massive change to discourse and practice around Payday loaners and Zero Hour Contracters. Or the trade unions who day in day out fight Coalition cuts and employer malpractice. And whose equivalents barely survive or exist indepenenlty in non-democratic states such as (just some examples close to my heart) Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Iran, Uzbekistan, Russia, Ukraine.

Brand's argument is arid because it is ignorant, not because he is working class.

craner
07-11-2013, 10:00 PM
Made your nipples hard, typing that, didn't it?

A little. And only when I typed "Barbara Castle". And it just did it again. Oof.

HMGovt
07-11-2013, 10:07 PM
You don't get it at all, do you? What do you have vested in the current system that you're so certain it cannot be substantively changed?

We're an advanced society lumbered with an ancient political system that is hopeless at anything other than perpetuating inequality and bolstering the position of the rich. Is it beyond us to build something better and futureproof?

I've ordered a copy of this by a right Tory, but at least he's daring to think a bit
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-End-Politics-Birth-iDemocracy/dp/1849544220

crackerjack
07-11-2013, 10:12 PM
I already have. You're one of the few people I've seen actually challenging his points rather than his character.


Then you can't have been looking very far. Tom Chivers and the Robert Webb (posted upthread) should do for starters, but there's plenty more.

shiels
07-11-2013, 10:13 PM
why aren't we voting online yet? surely that would change errythang?

craner
07-11-2013, 10:19 PM
Castle is a great example. All her battles were "boring" and "democratic": seat belts, breathalisers, union reform, pay beds in hospitals. All important, in their way. She was a warrior socialist, but crucially a democratic socialist. Did what she could within the desirable limits. The history of Labour in this time and before (Bevan, Cripps, Dalton, Morrison, etc) is all about the limits of socialism in a democracy. What you can do before you cross a line into non-democratic politics. It would be worth studying, for you lot, although you may find it a little dull.

I think I get it, though.

craner
07-11-2013, 10:19 PM
And she was sexy.

luka
08-11-2013, 09:18 AM
seatbelts, nothing wrong with seatbelts but that's not much of a battlecry craner.

luka
08-11-2013, 09:19 AM
there needs to be a way to take on and defeat powerful vested interests and voting labour is not it.

HMGovt
08-11-2013, 09:55 AM
seatbelts, nothing wrong with seatbelts but that's not much of a battlecry craner.

It was Ralph Nader's idea anyway.

From wikipedia "she attracted controversy when she told local government leaders to give added emphasis to motor vehicle access in urban areas, as "most pedestrians are walking to or from their cars.""

Cheers for that, Babs.

luka
08-11-2013, 09:58 AM
stick it to the man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilPn8hVmjCM

craner
08-11-2013, 10:16 AM
That Transport Bill was BIG, man.

craner
08-11-2013, 10:17 AM
Sexy seatbelts. I admit I was in a bit of a weird mood last night.

crackerjack
08-11-2013, 01:39 PM
It was Ralph Nader's idea anyway.

From wikipedia "she attracted controversy when she told local government leaders to give added emphasis to motor vehicle access in urban areas, as "most pedestrians are walking to or from their cars.""

Cheers for that, Babs.

Barbara Castle was a star and if Labour had listened to her history could've been very different. In Place of Strife = no Winter of Discontent = no Thatcher. Greatest leader we never had.

craner
25-11-2013, 10:58 AM
K-Punk Speaks. (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11299)

shiels
28-11-2013, 07:49 PM
K-Punk Speaks. (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11299)

that's an astoundingly good diagnosis of what's so annoying and uninspiring about a lot of lefty type chat.. especially the parts about a competition based on guilt and mutual fear and moral superiority "The most lauded figures in the Vampires’ Castle are those who have spotted a new market in suffering – those who can find a group more oppressed and subjugated than any previously exploited will find themselves promoted through the ranks very quickly."

not enough lefties realise they are cunts basically, or rather not enough lefties own their cuntishness, accept it.. they project it. contempt is always disavowed shame.. or something? russell brand us very good at accepting his cuntishness and makign light if it, without celebrating it

I really like owen jones too, glad he's being celebrated there

blacktulip
28-11-2013, 08:15 PM
I have an MA in English Literature so I know about this shit (true dat but deployed in a tongue-in-cheek manner here, etc.):

1) Every era of literature had people who garnered critical respect and/or the vote of the buying/theatre-attending public.

2) Many of them are completely unknown now, including amongst the undergraduate community.

3) Russell Brand and Jeremy Paxman are two of these guys.

woops
28-11-2013, 09:38 PM
:slanted:

blacktulip
28-11-2013, 10:53 PM
Sorry - couldn't resist. As you were.

Mr. Tea
28-11-2013, 11:28 PM
I have an MA in English Literature so I know about this shit (true dat but deployed in a tongue-in-cheek manner here, etc.):

1) Every era of literature had people who garnered critical respect and/or the vote of the buying/theatre-attending public.

2) Many of them are completely unknown now, including amongst the undergraduate community.

3) Russell Brand and Jeremy Paxman are two of these guys.

Yeah orlright it was good the first time.

sufi
17-12-2014, 10:55 AM
a load of defensive cobblers from some sort of rbs freelancer
http://blog.squandertwo.net/2014/12/an-open-letter-to-russell-brand.html
entertainingly taken down a couple of pegs in the comments when someone posted a video of the encounter