Russell Brand’s Fantasy of a Socialist Egalitarian Utopia – Red Ice Creations

“Question all messiahs, kill all buddhas.” – CDubKillionaireSwazeFuego

Via Red Ice Radio:


Fabian Socialist Logo

New: Russell Brand’s Fantasy of a Socialist Egalitarian Utopia – October 27, 2013
In a recent diatribe on BBC, Hollywood actor Russell Brand with Jeremy Paxman spoke candidly about his desire to create a “Socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth and heavy taxation of corporations.” In this commentary we question Brand’s so called “good intentions” and how qualified he really is to talk about these topics as a multi-millionaire. More importantly, we discuss his connection to the Fabian Socialist magazine the “New Statesman,” of which he was co-editing for a week before his senseless speech and call for a revolution on TV.

300 Comments on "Russell Brand’s Fantasy of a Socialist Egalitarian Utopia – Red Ice Creations"

  1. Maybe this guy answers my questions, I don’t know. I got tired of the dual scripted laughs and the heavy polarity. The comment about corporations and the poor guy that has worked his ass off, almost had me vomit. I would like to point out that dude makes a note not to attack the man too much, and then continues to attack the man.

    What is this guy advocating?
    Business as usual?

    How qualified is he?

    How many people were actually rallied by Russell Brands conversation?

    What’s wrong with uncertainty?
    He mocks how Russell Brand suggests that alternative might be useful.

    Preemptive: I am not advocating socialism, at the same time I am not buying this guys message either. It’s pretty simple to see what Russell Brand was saying. Things are fucked up, time to create a change. It could be this or that, but let’s do it.

  2. Red Ice Creations – RationalWiki

    The news section frequently features content from Alex Jones media.

    This explains a lot.

    • moremisinformation | Oct 30, 2013 at 9:11 pm |

      “The news section frequently features content from Alex Jones media”

      So does disinfo.

    • ishmael2009 | Oct 30, 2013 at 9:16 pm |

      +1 for Rationalwiki mention, its an underrated source. Huffington Post also feature there (unfavorably) as does Truthout. Tin-foil comes in different political hues.

    • oneironauticus | Oct 30, 2013 at 10:55 pm |

      The one and only time I’ve ever listened to Red Ice Radio, they were interviewing Sean Young (whom I happen to absolutely love, bat-shit-loony-or-not) and discussing the potential of space-aliens in the U.S. government and Ridley Scott’s secret Illuminati messages in Bladerunner (?)…she thought David Lynch and Dune was cool, though. *shrugs*

      • You lost me at David Lynch and Dune. I guess Dune I can understand, but Blue Velvet, and Twin Peaks. Seriously!

        The reverse speaking midget does not aprove.


        not my downvote

        • oneironauticus | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:04 pm |

          Oh, I know. DeepCough was just being a tard.

          I have a love-hate relationship with David Lynch. The first movie of his I saw was Mulholland Drive, when I was 16 and I thought it was a piece of shit.

          Blue Velvet was cool. I still haven’t seen all of Twin Peaks, but one day I’ll get around to it.

          • I’ll have to watch Mullholland Drive. It’s in my library.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:28 pm |

            There is precisely one scene in the entire film that is worth a damn. Not even a scene, really…a few seconds. Still haunts my nightmares.

          • I’ll still give it a chance. I’ve only ever hated a movie once. It was 30 Days of Night. I walked out of the theater after spending my hard earned cash. By only one movie, I mean movies that are not obviously z movies. I don’t waste my time there.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:53 pm |

            The entire film is a nightmare ….mostly.

          • The Well Dressed Man | Nov 1, 2013 at 12:27 am |

            This has all been pre-recorded. Silencio.

          • The Well Dressed Man | Nov 1, 2013 at 12:23 am |

            bah. The creepy thing about DL is that his scary bits don’t just stay on the screen. I was in the southland recently, and made a point to have a late breakfast at “Winkies.” Walking down the back steps, past the insanely lush growth of succulent plants, I was completely terrified of what I might find…..

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:50 pm |

            After you watch it and it is all a jumble read this.


          • Intriguing.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 12:06 am |

            The film is multiple dream realities with interlinking puzzles, full of trans-cinematic symbology and incorporating aspects of other lynch works. It is not an easy ride, nor all together a pleasant one, but as I learned what he had done I was quite amazed.

          • The Well Dressed Man | Nov 1, 2013 at 12:27 am |

            I was working in a theater when that one was released. Sat through the first dozen screenings and took notes. It’s almost the same tale as Lost Highway as far as I can construct a character-driven “narrative.” In terms of psychogeography, it seems to be sketching out the territory for Inland Empire, which I still refrain from commenting upon.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 12:36 am |

            ‘Refrain from commenting’ is something I tend to do after his films. Really couldn’t stand Lost Highway, but after Mulholland that one fell into place. I agree with your idea regarding the territory for Inland Empire.
            Did you find a resonance between Lost Highway & the melodrama of James & his murderous mistress in TP?

          • The Well Dressed Man | Nov 1, 2013 at 12:42 am |

            archetypally yes, she’s a classic noir fatale. But Renee and Alice are the same girl. If she tries to tell you differently, she’s lying. Is she the victim or the crime?

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:35 am |

            I just recalled that when I saw Lost Highway I had been through a nasty breakup…No wonder I couldn’t stand it. Why of all things I choose to project onto it has to be Lynch films. Self-mediated psychosis or induction of. At least I stopped doing the same w/ PKD & Samuel Beckett. X{

          • The Well Dressed Man | Nov 1, 2013 at 11:32 pm |

            Lost Highway is maybe a bit tawdry, but I caught it at the tail end of juvenalia, and loved every 90s-music-video moment. I still think the score/soundtrack represents Reznor’s creative peak. When I get around to transcribing my exhaustive two-hour rant of a grand unified theory explaining every last shot, you’ll be the first to know. I believe Mulholland to be the same narrative with different faces, but there are quite a few details that remain undefined.

        • oneironauticus | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:15 pm |

          Hm…for some reason my reply didn’t post as a reply to you…

    • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:24 am |

      Rational Wiki is a shit site, echar. It’s awful how patronizing and anti- intellectual the articles on there can be. I blush everytime I read one, because I can’t believe how superficial intellects can still be in this age of anarchic epistemology. I feel it reflects poorly on my perceived karma.

      • I did a google search so I could get a general idea of Red Ice’s perspective. It’s the first time I’ve visited the site. I honestly didn’t read the whole blurb until after. I apreciate and respect your view on this.

  3. I dunno about y’all, but I thought Brand was refreshing, and I found myself totally agreeing with him. His ideas are not new at all; they’ve been around for a long time. I mostly have absolutely no use for celebrities of any kind, but if this guy gets people thinking, talking and hopefully taking action, then that’s great.
    I did not listen to or watch the Red Ice bit; too long. Also, I have no time for fascist whack-jobs.

    • Jesus Shilling Christ Juan what action? Based on what? Do you really have an opinion? As for “fascist whack-jobs” are you reading from a script?

      • Judas bilking priest Camron.

        • So do you have an opinion? No evasion here.

          Enjoy the following.

          • If we all focus on abundance, everyone may live comfortably.

          • That is the new age mind control of the day isn’t it.

          • Be abundant man, they make the shit out of thin air anyway. I like never being able to pay back the national debt, it’s wonderful being leashed to a contrivance of pure evil. – The hippie socialist in my mind.

          • Your inner hippie socialist must have drank the kool-aid. Jim Jones’s or Tom Wolfe’s, you decide.

          • Do you have anything beside ad hominem dross to toss up?

          • Do you have anything beside ad hominem dross to toss up?

          • Got it, you are 3 years old on this thread and yet you feel so emboldened to rail against the system! Where is PIZAZZ when you need it? Anyhoo, stale wind blows like farts unseen…

          • gustave courbet | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:13 pm |

            Hey Cameron, a suggestion: your libertarian view point is pretty common here at disinfo, and people are not necessarily antagonistic to it. I think folks like Echar are more likely reacting to your tone than the philosophical content of your posts. For instance, you accuse others of ad hominem attacks and then pitch them out there yourself. I would suggest coming to the discussion with a more open mind and less aggression. You’ll be more likely to have an interaction on the merits of your ideas, and people will be more likely to listen. This isn’t true all over the web, but I’ve found it to be the case at disinfo. Cheers

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:41 pm |

            I think most of the regular commenter are left of center, and many of them hate Ron Paul and “We are Change” and all popular expressions of libertarianism from what I’ve seen.

            I am not sure why its so left wing here. The articles don’t seem slanted left for the most part, there seems to be a good mix. The Disinfo Books I have read seem even more libertarian than it is now, and even toyed with quasi fascist ideologues like Julius Evola.

            If you had a Socialist dude posting on a Libertarian forum, things would play out pretty similar as this thread I think.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 3:16 pm |

            Many regular commenters do not subscribe to left/right paradigms. Many are very aware of the broader history of libertarianism & not just the most recent manifestation and prescribed flavor of the day being used for political expedience by the status quo antics of the men behind the curtain.

          • I don’t like the left vs right dichotomy either. And in the early 20th C before the radicalisation began, I’d have been reckoned as a leftist.

          • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 3:40 pm |


            “Now, the Libertarian Party [the particular re-defined version of libertarianism we have in the USA] is a ´capitalist´ party. It’s in favor of what I would regard a particular form of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an extremely rigid system of domination — people have to… people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way… I do disagree with them very sharply, and I think that they are not… understanding the fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner.

            There isn’t much point arguing about the word ´libertarian.´ It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word ´democracy´ — recall that they called what they’d constructed ´peoples’ democracies.´ The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called ´libertarian´ here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that ´libertarian,´ fine; after all, Stalin called his system ´democratic.´ But why bother arguing about it?

            Traditional libertarians, like Jefferson, advocated sharply progressive taxes, because they wanted a system of relative equality, knowing that that’s a prerequisite for democracy. Jefferson specifically advocated it. We don’t have it anymore, it’s sort of there in legislation but it’s gone.”

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 4:04 pm |

            I think Chomsky has some good points. I had read them before. I personally consider myself as a Jeffersonian democrat. I am hoping a political economy similar to what Jefferson envisioned can emerge, through small, family scale, organic farming and small businesses restoring an ethos of personal autonomy and responsibility and stewardship of the Earth. I think its hard to have equality when most people have everything done for them by a few conglomerates.

            But also from what I have seen, many federal programs seem like centralized systems of command and control.

            I am not sure how this change would be brought about. People came to rely on McDonalds and Walmart initially by choice. But now many are dependent on them almost by necessity being effectively priced out of more socially responsible choices.

            I came to admire Ron Paul, though, not due to being completely sold on his ideology, but because he seemed to be the only presidential candidate with ANY type of ethos AT ALL!

          • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 4:08 pm |

            I appreciate your perspectives, and agree with many you stated here. And I understand your frustration and the appeal of Ron Paul, but he is a mix of some good ideas with a bunch of horrible ones. It is indeed difficult to find anyone worth supporting. This was one of Brand´s main points, that we need to start looking for ways of being/thinking that move outside of the traditional system, that don´t require the authority of entrenched ideologies. This is what, though not perfect, much of the Occupy movement did and continues to do — generate authority and action through consensus building.

          • moremisinformation | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:01 pm |

            That’s also why Voluntarists (Voluntaryists) reject the word Libertarian and certainly the political party which has been co-opted by the ‘right’. Chomsky’s critique is attempting to denounce an exceedingly outdated form of libertarian (notice the small l) thought.

            Otherwise, he’d understand that,

            “the fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and
            control, including the control of the manager and the owner”,

            is inherent in the Non Aggression Principle which is what most libertarians that I associate with (non of which are political) attempt to adhere to.

          • Thank you for posting. “the fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and
            control, including the control of the manager and the owner”

            Chomsky should then realize that his enemy is the FED, as they completely dominate and control our economy and are responsible for the boom and bust cycle which they use to pilfer from everyone not in their exclusive club.

            The reality that he doesn’t demonstrates his gatekeeper nature or his willful ignorance, both are deplorable and pathetic for someone so lauded as an intellectual.

          • Consensus is democracy which is two wolves and sheep arguing whats for dinner. The will of the people ruling overall is a ruse, a myth in its modern American incarnation. Diebold is the coffin nail in said illusion. On a local level a constitutional republic devoid of legalese traps such as seen in the money laundering CAFR system and its foundation in the fraudulent and violently coercive (and constitutionally unratified federal reserve system are the deepest threats to what would be a free market. For more information about CAFR’s google Clint Richardson and CAFR.

          • Also Science is not based on consensus and should reflect natural law, to the degree that is manipulated to provide bell curve type disinfo such as eugenicists crave, is the degree that it will fail to produce anything with any type of harmonic potential.

          • happypedro | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:30 pm |

            Nah, that “two wolves and sheep arguing what`s for dinner” is a cute trope that has very little meaning. It is more realistically like 99 sheep and 1 wolf, since 1% of the population tends to be or lean toward sociopathic/psychopathic behavior. The degree to which “we the people” have input or influence in the system is most certainly debatable, and greatly decreased with, as you point out correctly, all the corruption and control systems. But apathy is not a strategy nor a good vibe to live by. We forge ahead best we can.

          • Ethics are hard to come by for the majority of today’s political class.

          • If you are going to quote a hack gatekeeper like Noam, at least consider the grandeur of his hypocrisy.

            “The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called ´libertarian´ here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.

            Funny that Noam presumes the FED is our savior and never entertains they could be wrong let alone an absolutely Massive Private and Unaccountable Tyranny!

            This is propaganda you are quoting. Noam also presumes to ignore the very simple science exposing the sick lies of 911.

            Noam is a chump and a shill. Stick to linguistics Noam, you don’t have the intellectual integrity to discuss politics if you are maintain such glaring contradictions in spite of all evidence and attempts to point you in the right direction.

          • how does noam presume the FED to be our savior?

          • I dunno many folks here cling to “climate change” and when challenged fall back into appeals to authority not born out by science and name calling. Sometimes it is balanced but often I see a predictable “liberal” leftist bias at disinfo.

            Regarding socialists dudes posting at a Libertarian forum, I appreciate challenges, I just hope that people would go further than Echar in attempting to explain their positions. Notice I challenged him to elaborate on his positions and rather than do the work, he just name calls and presumes he has “won” some argument.

            This sets the tone for the thread and while leading to higher comment counts, also leads us astray and provides the antagonism many skim and respond to, not realizing it was the original commenters own failings and ignorance that are responsible. Then they blame me because he plays victim (as expected from someone not capable of intellectually defending his perspective).

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 10:25 am |

            yeah, i think people know its a left wing forum. I think most commenters know that if they simply ridicule libertarianism they will be backed up by the peanut gallery. I think Juan made some good points though when you asked him to elaborate. What do you make of Scandinavian countries who have Central Banks also and are more socialist than the US and seem to have a higher standard of living? The seem to be way head of the US on things like Longevity, median income, poverty, literacy, health, they get maternity leave, paternity leave, a guaranteed month of vacation, shorter hours, better wages, cheaper education costs. I mean how bad could it be?

            Personally I think libertarians make some good points. I understand why the FED is bad and causes inflation. I just think Russel Brand is some dude sharing his opinion just like anyone else. He just happens to be famous so his thoughts get heard. I agree there are holes in what he says.

          • The video you shared set the tone. When I brought this to the forefront, you dismissed it. As for intellectualizing. I do not see the merit in aping someone elses ideas, besides using as a wall. Experiencing how red ice was being, and yourself, I feel I am correct in going with my heart on this.

          • I disagree only because it is Echar who leads in with ad hominem attacks and when challenged to elucidate his thinking, responds in the typical way, projecting onto me his own failings and refusing to address in a nuanced manner my challenges to his thinking. If Echar would show respect he would be given it. Thank you for commenting Gustave. My ad hominem attacks were all focused on Echar and are tit for tat. I am not jesus and therefore need not turn any cheek (and of course that form of jesus was manufactured to make pussies of everyone in my opinion) Notice I’ve not been aggressive to anyone who was not aggressive to me here. Thank you for commenting and please review the script to see if what I have said is true.

          • It’s hard to get the subtle nuance and charm of sarcasm across on the interwebs mind you.

          • That was neither subtle nor charming.

          • If you consider debtmoney to be real wealth, you may already be leashed to a contrivance of pure evil.

          • It is wealth for those who administer it and bail out their homies on our dime while enforcing unconstitutional taxation via coercive violence. The national debt is a contrivance of pure evil, but I’m not jumping into a new polarity, I’m interested in fusion and an honest monetary system.

          • I think the national debt” is the “contrivance of pure evil.”
            Embrace your inner hippie socialist, Cameron. Come to the light, comrade.

          • I feel the moral thing to do is to share good fortune. The oversimplified image you shared left that out. The citizen on the far right could be a slave master, a banker, or whatever.

            Even gangsters have been known to spread the wealth in their neighborhoods. Speaking of gangsters, what you just said about mind control made me think of what a crack dealer would say to a junkie wanting to get sober. “Them rehabs are mind control man”.

          • Translation. The Moral thing is to give me some of your hard earned money because I think it is the right thing to do. That is your choice, don’t force it on others. Charity is up to each individual to enact not the state. Notice you admit that gangsters utilize such tactics and your ad hominem attack is wikkidy wikkidy wack yo. Stay of the crack my ninja.

          • I can’t even continue. I feel like I am trying to communicate with a moron who has been fed a bunch of lines. I feel it’s immoral to continue, because it’s not right being mean to retarded people.

          • But echar haven’t you seen the glory of Somalia, where there is no government to force people to pay taxes? Where there’s no health care or restrictions of fire arms and each individual respects each other for their hard work? How can you argue against Wiltshire when there is a beacon of individual enterprise hanging off the Horn of Africa?

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:46 am |

            There is healthcare in Somalia.

          • moremisinformation | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:02 pm |

            Somalia, that’s original. Never saw that coming.

          • ….. Haven’t you seen the glory of DETROIT!? In actuality, if government can get out of the way, people usually do find a way to manage. Should we not reward the risk of entrepreneurship?

          • Made me literally LOL:)

          • I honestly do not like calling names, but sometimes I wonder about who’s on the other end.

          • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:21 pm |

            Any “hard earned money” does not occur in a vacuum. Most of the wealth of the super rich is UNearned income. As Michael Parenti puts it in his book Democracy For The Few: “Wealth and poverty are not just juxtaposed, they are in a close dynamic relationship. Wealth creates poverty and relies on it for its own existence [abundance = choice = freedom… scarcity = dependency = control]. Without slaves and serfs, how would the master and lord live in the style to which they are accustomed? Without the working poor, how would the leisurely rich make do? Were there no underpriviledged, who would be privileged?”

            In other words: All the wealth that the super rich attain is not gained in a vaccum — it is gained by a system [set up by the super rich — such as our “founding fathers” who loved slavery; James Madison, the “father” of our Constitution, told a visitor shortly after the American Revolution that he made $257 a year on every slave he owned and spent only $12 or $13 for the slave’s keep] which exploits the vast majority of the public, rewarding sociopathic selfish behavior in the “business is war” climb to the top.

            Beyond that, wealth is ALREADY being distributed, and it is mostly being distributed to a very small group of super rich folks.

            So the system is already set up to do what you claim to abhore — taking the “hard earned money” of average folks and giving it to the wealthy. Which is really what you should be railing against: that the rich are already taking money away from you and millions of other folks who have less than you.

            Those who have enormous wealth buy our politicians who then pass laws that favor their interests. Thus, our government is set up to benefit them, not you nor most folks. Your argument, then, is not even self-supporting, unless you yourself are super rich.

            So, the real issue is not whether or not to distribute wealth — because however we set up the system it will indeed have this effect — it is HOW to BEST do so. And with the immense disparities of our new Hyper Gilded Age, it is clearly not being distributed well for most folks, as Brand rightly points out. I recommend this link to learn a bit more:


            Are you an admirer of Ayn Rand, perchance? She was a great admirer of sociopathic thinking:


            “William Edward Hickman, who along with Nietzsche’s concept of the “Uberman” or Superman, the same idea that animated Hitler’s idea of the Master Race, are the sources from which Rand would draw her characters traits throughout her writing career. Uberman is behind her idea of the so called productive members, the mega rich Venture Capitalists of society as opposed to the rest of us average people who in her own words are nothing but moochers and parasites even if we work hard for a living every day. While these productive members, the Capitalists are her Ubermen Hickman was the Uberman’s personality right on up to the charcater of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. So who was William Edward Hickman?

            William Edward Hickman was in 1927 the most famous person in America. His fame was based on being a violent serial killing child murderer. In 1927 he kidnapped, murdered, and dismembered the body of a 12 year old girl. It is even farther alleged he had opined that he wanted to kill someone just to see what it was like. He later confessed to even more murders.

            Ayn Rand knew all of this as she opined that he was a beautiful soul and that he was the finest example of what it was to be a man. Why?

            Because he had no feelings for or connection to others and no ability to empathize with the feelings and needs of others. This cold ruthless inability to empathize or to feel in any way connected with the rest of society permeates her thinking and animates her ideals all the way through writing The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.”


            The notion of “charity” has the same problem. Sounds good on the surface, but in reality it leans more sociopathic than healthy — oh how good of that person, who can now feel so good and superior about themselves, to have given to those who are lesser than them. Better to set up a system, or calibrate our current system in such a way, that focuses on more egalitarian principles. That, in my view, is the most moral and wortwhile.

          • Could not agree more. Very well said:)

          • Cortacespedes | Oct 31, 2013 at 10:23 pm |

            Great comments Pedro. Your last notes on charity reminded me of two quotes from George Eliot’s “Middlemarch”

            “What we good stingy people don’t like, is having our sixpences sucked away from us.”
            “One must be poor to know the luxury of giving!”

            Charity is a luxury, and those who can afford it, are usually too stingy to indulge in it effectively.

          • Again is it really Capitalism that is to blame? Fascism is a more appropriate definition but of course their is nuance to be explored. That being said, with all of the massive impropriety which is administered by gov’t, do you really think giving them more power is the answer??

          • Cortacespedes | Nov 1, 2013 at 3:24 am |

            Yes, capitalism is to blame. What we are living now is the endgame of it. I will admit a purely socialist ideology will take us to the same place.

            The massive impropriety administered by government is at the behest of their “owners” the “endgame capitalists”. They own the government, not the other way around.

            Surely you’ve read some Marx (which is ONLY good for critiquing capitalism) or better yet, played the board game “Monopoly”; if so, you know how it plays out.

            Oh, if only it could be the way Adam Smith proposed it. Christ, I would be happy with the return of “the iron law of wages”.

            But alas, human folly.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 4, 2013 at 2:07 pm |

            Is it opposite day? That entire post is the opposite of the truth.

            Total annual charitable giving is around $300 billion. So, let’s be clear here. You think rich people are stingy, right?

          • happypedro | Nov 6, 2013 at 2:35 pm |

            Stingy, yes. Indeed. Given the amount of money they are thriving from a system that generates great wealth for them while sucking wealth and life from so many, yes. $300 billion seems like a lot, but relatively speaking it´s very little, and plenty of “charity” is really just tax write off B.S. Where is the money going to? One thing for sure, it is certainly not a democratic process.

          • moremisinformation | Oct 31, 2013 at 10:52 pm |

            The entire paradigm your posts describes is enforced through the violence of the state. Yet nowhere in your post do I see you mention that.

          • Cortacespedes | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:41 pm |

            The entirety of so called “civilization” hinges on violence and coercion. Makes no difference its ideology.

          • I imagine It makes a difference if it’s directed towards those on top. If directed towards others, meh.

          • I don’t believe the state has the right to steal from productive members (us rabble not of the superrich class of course) I don’t believe they deserve to print money out of thin air and assign to us endless debt totalling 1million + for every man woman and child, or so they say! I don’t agree with pigeonholing the ideals of libertarianism with the potential character flaws of anyone individual (perhaps others, me not really) I agree we need to revise the system, but we should second guess pied pipers who play on heart strings and are complete hypocrites only spouting inflammatory rhetoric. Realizing of course that Mr. Brand has made 15 MILLION dollars of FILTHY profit. Rather than insisting those few who have managed to build lasting wealth through hard work and ingenuity (most small businesses yes) deserve to keep the fruit of their labor and not be forced to subsidize the manufactured poor classes. See how they play all sides? They keep the hard working and industrious laborers who innovate, create business and hire others so that they can learn skills and survive busy with obscene bureaucratic nightmares like Obamacare, siphoning as much as possible and preventing any challengers to their monopolies, while also blaming those individuals for not being empathic or caring regardless of how much charity they do extend. Do you mean to tell me that no libertarians or laissez faire capitalists have a heart because you don’t like Ayn Rand???? Really? It’s time we stop fooling ourselves. We can agree that the FED is an insidious parasite yes? You are aware of it’s nature and function by now I imagine, if not, what do you make of it?

            Thanks for commenting and not resorting to pointless ad hominem banter like Echar.

          • Perfectly stated. I am so happy to see there are other sane people around.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 4, 2013 at 2:13 pm |

            False dichotomies abound.

          • The problem with your argument is that people like you believe that the rich “earn” all of the wealth they have accumulated. Your view assumes they create wealth out of thin air by waving a magic wand. That’s not how it works.

            If you look at the data over the last 30 years, you’ll see that the wealth in this country has been redistributed to the richest Americans. This is an indisputable fact at this point. If you look at the data since the (slow) recovery began in 2009, you’d see that the top 1% have enjoyed 121% of all income gains while the poorest 99% have seen their income go DOWN by .4%.

            The moral thing is to put a stop to the rich profiting off the backs of the poor.

          • This is what is so difficult for people to understand:
            You didn’t inherently “earn” any money.
            The money does not inherently belong to you.
            It’s a game that everyone is forced to play, which does not start with a blank slate. Some people start with the game loaded in their favor and others start with nothing.
            And yet each believes that they have “earned” what they have and that it “belongs” to them.
            It’s a complete illusion.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 4, 2013 at 2:05 pm |

            Did it occur to you some of us don’t want slacking, lazy ass, worthless people to live comfortably?
            disclaimer: it is ok to be all of these things until you become an adult (meaning mid-20s). Then, it is not ok at all. IMO

          • Money isn’t objective property. It’s a token of exchange created by the state.

            That said, why does the state need to take some from those who have a lot in order to give some to those who have a little? Instead of printing dollars and giving them to banks to put into circulation when someone takes out a loan, why not give them to doctors and farmers who work with or for the poor?

          • Good question! Micro currencies to the rescue? We do have the right to print our own money after all and avoid their schemes. We’ve just been hijacked by Bankers for the last century.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 4, 2013 at 2:18 pm |

            It’s called fractional reserve lending. And it actually has a meaningful effect. You should learn it. If you don’t understand it, then you have no clue how we got this far, how modern business works, or even remotely what the argument of the other side is.
            And of course, every virtue is the mean between two vices. We are definitely on the excessive vice side today. But to make your argument you should at least understand basic banking vs. plain old subsidization.

          • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:54 pm |

            Many problems with “logic” in this image. First, most citizens do not approve of the way our current tax system is set up; most citizens agree with the idea of a taxing the rich more, particularly the super rich — a progressive tax system. So where is the gun of the corporate plutonomy pointing at the The State, and another gun of The State being pointed at the Citizen holding the Social Justice sign? Mildly clever, this image, but clearly framing the debate in such a warped way as to be propaganda.

            From “Democracy For The Few” by Michael Parenti:

            “The greatest source of individual wealth is inheritance. A large majority of the ´self-made´ super-rich received crucial start-up capital from a family member or inherited fortunes. If you are not rich, it is because you lacked the foresight to pick the right parents at birth. Studies show that, despite the well-publicized cases, rags-to-riches is a relatively rare exception. Most people die in the class to which they were born. The poor usually stay poor, no matter how hard they toil. In fact, there is less upward social mobility today than a generation ago. The level of inequality in the United States is higher than any other industrialized nation, and it continues to grow.

            The real wealth is within the super-rich stratum, a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the population, some 145,000 taxpayers, who increased their aggregate income by almost 600 percent in the last three decades (adjusting for inflation). The share earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the real income earned by the bottom 90 percent fell by 7 percent. In addition, the Treasury Department says that the super-rich find ways, legal and illegal, to shelter much of their income from taxes. So the gap between them and everyone else is much larger than even these figures suggest. The tiny top fraction that composes the super-rich is not thirteen times but thousands of times richer than the poorest quintile. Few of the people who study income distribution seem to realize how rich the rich really are.

            One should distinguish between those who own the wealth of society and those who must work for a living. The very rich families and individuals who compose the owning class live mostly off investments: stocks, bonds, rents, and other property income. Their employees live mostly off wages, salaries, and fees. The distinction between owners and employees is blurred somewhat by the range of incomes within both classes. ´Owners´ refer both to the fabulously wealthy stockholders of giant corporations and the struggling proprietors of small stores. But the latter hardly qualify as part of thecorporate owning class. Among the victims of big business is small business itself. Small businesses are just so many squirrels dancing among the elephants. Every year over 30,000 of them go out of business.

            Those who say that private enterprise can answer our needs overlook the fact that private enterprise has no such interest, its function being to produce the biggest profits possible. People may need food, but they offer no market until their need (or want) is coupled with buying power to become a market demand. When asked what they were doing about widespread hunger in the United States, one food manufacturer responded with refreshing candor: ´If we saw evidence of profitability, we might look into this.´”

          • “One should distinguish between those who own the wealth of society and those who must work for a living.” I agree. We would need to consider who has made themselves exceedingly wealthy through the manipulation enabled by the FED and it’s endless tributaries. In that regard I do support “wealth redistribution” but it also sets a dangerous precedence if we do not expose the FED which again Brand does not mention even in passing.

            If you expose the founders of the system and their crony coterie and hold them accountable, much of the woes of the current system could be addressed without their insidious input.

            Also I’ve no issue with for profit systems, I do believe that if given the alternative most sane people will vote with their dollars for the companies that provide the best service and maintain the healthiest practices, it’s only the false left right paradigm passing the buck back and forth in their hegelian dialectical games that are designed to deflate the poor, inflate their wealth and devalue currency which again they print from thin air. Have you seen this previously?


          • “A pickpocket is obviously a champion of private enterprise. But it would perhaps be an exaggeration to say that a pickpocket is a champion of private property. Capitalism and Commercialism…have at best tried to disguise the pickpocket with some of the virtues of the pirate. The point about Communism is that it only reforms the pickpocket by forbidding pockets.”

            -GK Chesterton

          • Except the govt who pickpockets everyone…..

          • capitalism is armed robbery

      • Yes, you’ve found me out. I am reading the evil socialist script that I downloaded from the interwebs.
        Action . . . oh, I dunno, how about if more people stopped buying a buncha shit they don’t need with money they don’t have, stopped watching tv, stopped voting, and in general refused to participate or cooperate, as much as possible, with a corrupt system.
        My opinion is things are fucked up, and that is due in large part to corporate state capitalism run amok. It has totally subverted what passes for a political process in the US, and is also destroying the planet and spreading untold misery all over the world.
        Like Brand, I’m not even gonna attempt to lay out some ideal system for you. I have no idea what that is, but I know that what we have now is working perfectly for a few and devastating the majority. I am not an expert in these matters, but I am sure that there are no shortage of good people with solid ideas that could work better than the status quo.
        I look at socialist societies (the horror, the horror) like the Scandinavian countries, and see that they have a much more equitable distribution of wealth, free quality health care for everyone, etc, etc. Looks like a better deal to me.
        As for my “fascist whack-job” comment, that comes from reading the rational wiki link that Comrad Echar was kind enough to post.

        • Thank you Juan. I understand your sentiment and agree, what we currently have does equate with fascism. Which is not capitalism, thus we should be clear to make the distinction in our speech, lest we fall prey to newspeak. Capitalism, in it’s laissez faire and free enterprise incarnations, does require some oversight but to give this power to the federal gov’t is no solution whatsoever. Myself I’m looking into Non Aggression Principles and Voluntaryism more and more, as well as Libertarian studies (The Horror The Horror! 😉 If we could get big pharma and the FDA out of the medicine business, we probably could provide a much better system than exists currently. Also what would you say are some of the failings of socialized medicine in other countries? Absence of protected monopolies would enable competition and thus better and more innovative healing modalities. Are you familiar with the concept of eugenics and how this sadistic religious belief has infiltrated the deepest corners of governance? John Taylor Gatto and Tragedy and Hope are the best sources I have found for getting to grips with the reality of eugenocidal policy. Check out “The Ultimate History Lesson” please and let me know what you think please.


          • The problem is that unchecked capitalism will always lead to Fascism. The entire premise of capitalism is flawed. It is cruel to put profit above all else. It is cruel to profit off of certain things, namely healthcare and incarceration. Furthermore, capitalism promotes individualism and greed, which are not conducive to a happy society.

            Most Libertarians I’ve had discussions with DO subscribe to anarcho-capitalism. No matter how many regulations we put in place to contain capitalism, the rich (and corporations) will always find new ways to screw over the proletariat. That’s because capitalism breeds this kind of greed and the relentless pursuit of profit.

            You’re talking about putting band-aids over a gaping wound here. The data is in, and capitalism is irreparably broken. It simply doesn’t work.

          • I’m not convinced that private ownership requires profit.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 8, 2013 at 11:15 am |

            The problem is that unchecked ________ will always lead to Fascism, *much faster than capitalism*. The entire premise of __________ is flawed *on a much deeper level than capitalism*. It is cruel to put profit above all else…
            Insert any other form of governance in practice today (ceteris paribus), aaaaaand FTFY

          • I’m not sure about fascism and capitalism being different things. If I remember correctly, fascism, among other things, like a militant nationalism, and and all powerful state, is the marriage of state and corporate power. It is capitalism in service of the state and the state in service of capitalism. It’s capitalism with the power of the state; it’s still capitalism. I call it corporate-state capitalism, fascism, same thing. Now, this is a particular flavor of capitalism, but it is still captialism.
            How are we to protect ourselves from the very real depredations of capitalism then? From what I have seen of other countries that have a far more equitable system than we do, is that the state, the government that acts to mitigate, control and keep in check the devastating effects of unfettered, laissez fair capitalism. Remember Blake’s “dark satanic mills?” As we have seen, is not not going to regulate itself in any truly meaningful way.
            I will admit that I am not totally comfortable with this model of state control because I simply do not trust the fucking state. Especially the US government. It serves the interests of capital, not the interests of most people. So, like I said, I don’t know what the answers are. But I really think that more of the same, or worse, even a more radical version of the same is not the way to go.
            As far as the down side of socialized medicine, form what I have heard from my Canadian and European friends, people are mostly pretty happy with what they have. The complaints I have heard, have to do with long waiting lists for treatment for certain conditions. That’s about it.
            Of course, I am familiar with eugenics. Are you suggesting that the price people pay for socialized medicine is that they have eugenics policies forced on them? Besides the Nazi master race nonsense, I’m not sure how that has played out in Europe. But I know that it was, and more than likely is still being practiced in the US. I remember hearing or reading something about female prisoners in the US being subjected to unauthorized sterilization. And we don’t even get the benefit of free health care.
            If it is not too long and I have time I may have a look at the link you suggest and get back to you on that.

          • Cannot edit this post and it’s kinda bugging me.

    • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 8, 2013 at 11:38 am |

      You find this refreshing? Way to bare your naivete’.

  4. DrDavidKelly | Oct 30, 2013 at 8:52 pm |

    I’ll throw my hat into the ring. I liked what Brand had to say, he’s even very articulate, especially under fire. Does he have all the answers? No. But he see’s the inequality and he’s repulsed by it. He wants change and that is something we nearly all want and as such I’m calling him brother.

    • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 4, 2013 at 2:01 pm |

      How is someone who busted ass, slept 4 hours a night for 15 years, and still does, so he doesn’t have to stop paying his people having a lot of money, vs. one who did jack shit, other than bong out and watch southpark for the best 10 years of his life, ending up with very little money, Inequality? And how is it disgusting?
      I’m baffled.

      • DrDavidKelly | Nov 5, 2013 at 4:11 pm |

        Yeah you’re right … the Southpark watching guy is a hell of a lot smarter. But that’s not really the inequality I was speaking of. I guess I was referring to those who have so very much compared to those who can barely get a bowl of rice each day. That’s what I find disgusting – don’t you?

        • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 8, 2013 at 11:35 am |

          Not really, I call it the laws of Nature, and the human condition. And make no mistake, I care as much, lament as much, for those who suffer as you do, and probably more. If you’ll take note, you’ll see that we are winning the fight, and people are being lifted up. But progress requires effort on the part of the individual, always. Capitalism teaches this principle and that is why is has lifted more people above these two laws than any other system, by orders of magnitude. Not only that, but the vast majority of the outright charity that the needy receive in this world flows directly from this dirty nasty system ‘capitalism’ you refer to. Look at China and India over the past two decades. What type of reforms have led to the immense gains in quality of life? Less Capitalism and more Communism? I think not.
          One last thing, is Capitalism fair? No it is not. Especially when overly regulated, but I will concede that a modicum of regulation is necessary. Is Communism fair? Do the socialists of the world really think that the productive and ambitious people in this world will continue to risk/produce when the carrot is removed from the stick? Brand knows better.. he’s just trying to get attention. That’s all he does.

          • Oh, I get it, you’re still under the influence of all that Matrix Cool Aid your were fed all your life. ‘Murika!

          • DrDavidKelly | Nov 8, 2013 at 4:38 pm |

            Judging by your lexicon you are still very much rooted in the capitalist paradigm. For every ‘good’ that capitalism has done there are 2 evils. Unlike some however I live to see a better day. I don’t believe in your ‘human condition’. Like Brand I don’t have the answers but like Brand I dream for something better.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 11, 2013 at 12:12 pm |

            “For every ‘good’ that capitalism has done there are 2 evils.”

            Citation desperately needed.

            Seriously, I’m ready to be enlightened. I want to be part of this new paradigm of thinking. Here’s your chance. Convince me that Communist systems have superior ends. Convince me that Capitalism doesn’t stack up to it’s competitors.

          • DrDavidKelly | Nov 12, 2013 at 6:07 pm |

            I could never do that I’m sure. Brand says ‘socialist egalitarian’ which is not Communism. Consider yourself officially welcomed to the new paradigm. Have you ever thought what other economic/social systems might be possible? I’m sure you are familiar with the Zeitgeist Movement.


            I’m not advocating their position either but I applaud people thinking beyond Capitalism because, lets face it, if this is the best we can do, we’re a sorry bunch.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 15, 2013 at 12:36 pm |

            I’m a dreamer at heart and an engineer, so yes, I’ve spent much of my life contemplating ‘better ways’. But I’ve learned with politics and economics, fairly small changes can have enormous effects an cause much pain to good people. Change can be good, in general, and is inevitable, in theory, and is sometimes necessary, in reality. But it’s important to realize that, uh, yeah, Capitalism *is* the best we’ve done to date. I don’t think Zeitgeistism is actually ‘practiced” in reality today, is it? I’ll check it out just cuz I love to learn new things.. But my point is, realistically, you are not going to introduce a radically different political or economic system without radical and considerable pain to many good people.. Furthermore, there are only a couple of ways this kind of change can occur, and in any case we’ve seen that the end product never looks like the original intent, because there’s no accountability for the implementers. In the process of implementation, the good intentions are vacuumed up by power struggles (e.g. Cuba). This I why I feel what the Founding Fathers did in establishing our Republic is #1 on the list of accomplishments for all ages of man. Despite their differences and their natural desires for power, they gave us a fair, well thought out system that works for people who work. A system where you are free to succeed and free to fail. And one where it’s hard to make rules, because too many rules impose on liberty, and also hinder our best and brightest in producing things that are actually of use to people, and livelihoods in the process.
            Poo poo’ing capitalism is disingenuous. Von Mises can square it up for you (The Anti-Capitalist Mentality). Those of you who think my conclusions flow from that alone, or from any pleasant mixture of kool-aide, need to realize that my conclusions come from my own experiences. I’m no slouch when it comes to diversity. I’ve seen and studied the world. I’m not ever going to say, “there’s not a better way”, but I will say, “all the suggestions I’ve heard of late don’t even come close”, including Russell Brand’s bullshit.
            But I don’t have to explain this to you, you already know this.

          • DrDavidKelly | Nov 15, 2013 at 7:51 pm |

            I think that is the difference between Brand and yourself. Brand sees the inequality, the starving and poor and at the other end of spectrum, the rich elite and feels a sense of compassion whereas you call this disparity – ‘the human condition.’ Brand sees that for white middle-class educated folk like yourself capitalism works very nicely. As long as you can block out of your mind the thoughts about the people in developing countries who make your clothes for less than what it is possible to live on. As long as you can turn away from the catastrophic environmental damage capitalism as a system encourages; the rape of our oceans, the destruction of our forests etc. It’s also very easy to say “well it’s the best idea we’ve had yet” … which is only true for some people. Kind of like lobotomy being the best cure for mental illness, state capitalism as it is now practiced, is a utilitarian system that benefits those who are positioned to so and poo poos from a great height on those it exploits.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 18, 2013 at 6:02 pm |

            Yes well I think you and the Zeitgeists will have quite a bit of trouble changing attitudes. So much, you’ll find, that the sheer brutality and destructiveness required of it would pretty much equate it to a type of genocide. Would Zeitgeistism be worth it if that’s what it took?

          • DrDavidKelly | Nov 18, 2013 at 8:57 pm |

            You’re assuming the transition to be one of violence. Maybe it will (oh yes there will be blood) or maybe it wont (The Velvet Revolution). One thing is for sure the old ‘system’ will pass and be replaced by a new … turn turn …

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 19, 2013 at 12:31 pm |

            You’re talking about the elimination of the concept of private property. It’s not an assumption that it would require violence, it’s a fact.

          • DrDavidKelly | Nov 19, 2013 at 4:11 pm |

            Are you referring to The Zeitgeist Movement? Do you really think it will replace capitalism? I don’t think it likely. I’m equally suspicious of your ‘facts’. One of the features of capitalism is its ability to adapt. I think it’ll be around for a good while yet. Unlike yourself I don’t have any concrete ‘facts’ around what a post-capitalist system might look like or how it might come about. It’s a very interesting idea though and it seems no one really has any firm concept of what it might be like. I’m guessing, (no facts) at least in the early stages, it would be a sort of hybrid of state capitalism. Alternatively we could see a very abrupt change, a revolution but it seems to me that this is less likely.

          • from each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

            that’s the essence of communism, and its the essence of equality. will people work without the profit motive? necessity of survival will make sure they do, not to mention the fact that in a community you are directly accountable to your fellows. no need for environmental regulation, either, when you are directly linked with the earth that sustains you.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm |

            Poppycock. In that world, I’ll listen to that voice in my head that tells me life’s too short to break my back working. I’ll just chill out, and call in sick every day. A complete 180 of my life today, and I’ll get away with it. That is one sick vision, jnana.

          • living in communion with nature cooperating with her instead of conquering her.. you call that sick! I believe the propaganda machine has gotten a hold of yer mind.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 15, 2013 at 4:34 pm |

            No darling I’m not calling that part sick. I’m trying to tell you that your ethos has a gaping flaw in it.. that it’s human nature to be less productive when your needs are met for you. There’s a minority of people who were born to honestly produce. The majority must be coaxed (I am one of them). This can be accomplished in very few ways. You can offer something in exchange (the carrot), or you can force them (slavery), or something in between. The carrot has worked wonders, and in parts of the world where the carrot doesn’t exist, is it any wonder you have chaos, killing, corruption, poverty and lawlessness? No. Communities are not self policing, hence the need for gov’t (enter Adam Smith). But wait, if the gov’t just makes everyone work, that works, right? wrong. The majority of people if they feel captive or taken advantage of, will resist, rebel, refuse, fuss, fight, quit, or fake it (I am one of them).. I mean.. it’s been tried. It failed. Back in the U.S.S.R? Is that what we want, because without the carrot you will need coercion. And you might find that puts a few blemishes on your utopia.

          • Being less productive is not always a bad thing.

          • you will do what you have to do to survive, or else die. unless you produce something the community determines is of value and chooses to feed and shelter you. otherwise YOU must feed and shelter yerself. that’s yer carrot. as it is now, we produce useless crap that has little to do with actual life. that’s why we need an artificial “carrot”. the status quo and the system you wish to maintain is an artificial and temporary little blip in the history of humanity and life. It has nothing to do with reality. all it serves is to line the pockets of a select group of people. its a scam and you have fallen for it. that is, you prosper because of this scheme that COERCES humanity to live UNNATURALLY. You are so friggin brainwashed you cant even see what is our Natural Birthright. You keep suggesting the only alternative is a soviet type communism. That, too, is a contrived artificial life.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm |

            Ouch.. that’s harsh. But also humorous..

            ” unless you produce something the community determines is of value and chooses to feed and shelter you. otherwise YOU must feed and shelter yerself”
            Sounds kinda like the status quo to me. Except here, you can work harder to fulfill whatever personal desires you have, unlike there, where you are restricted for fear you’ll become a cog in the machine.
            You just admitted your system requires the same coercion as mine. How ’bout that. shall we talk about implementation and enforcement and how that will look in the new world?
            Did it occur to you that your idea of ‘natural’ is not definitive? Isn’t what is ‘natural’ always changing? Is an amputee with one of these new amazing artificial limbs natural? Is nuclear fusion natural? What about a human who can fly?

          • the difference is, its a small community/village one lives in. and you have the ability to leave when you like. early new England was very communistic, if you didn’t know. the early Christian church was, too. yer not a cog in the machine, but a loving member of the community in those communities. most people love their communities and love to be helpful, as well. have you ever heard of working bees? in early new England the whole village would come together and work for the benefit of a member, like building his house. the amish do something similar. are you really disgusted by such beautiful concepts, or are you feigning disgust because this idea goes against yer preconceptions?

          • Lookinfor Buford | Nov 19, 2013 at 12:38 pm |

            We don’t live in that world anymore, babe. If I will concede that in a sparsely populated, low tech, low comms, low mobility and naturally tribalistic world, these solutions you propose do in fact work, and If I even go further and say that it was a beautiful thing the way native americans viewed the land as a shared resource for all to be stewards and consumers of, would you believe that I am a thoughtful person? I’m simply telling you it will never be that way again. The reasons are endless, and I won’t patronize you. But what you, and the Zeitgeists others have mentioned on this thread are proposing is communism. There’s no getting around it. And what you are all in denial about is two things:

            1. Human character flaw number 1: That a large percentage of people are rather worthless when their basic needs are met for them (witness trust fund babies, slackers, and me, if someone gave me a million bucks. oh and pretty much all of France ;). This will not be fixed by *any* system. So the question becomes *how* will we get people to produce, coercion, or the carrot? These non-competitive solutions *require* coercion. Or severe indoctrination, take your pick.

            2. Human character flaw number 2: A large percentage of people will seek, seize, create, and manipulate power structures, given the opportunity. So unless your world is implemented and enforced entirely by non-humans, implementation and enforcement will be corrupted, and I would suggest, much worse, than what we live in today. Plus, really?
            Obviously, I believe that if you have to go about correcting these two character flaws, by way of propaganda, economic warfare, indoctrination, fear mongering, et al.. only to save humanity from having to compete with one another for scare resources, you are only promoting ‘regression’. And you are also engaging in a popular revolution based on the myth of communism which has occurred ad nauseam through the last couple of millennia ..

          • I never asked if I wanted to live in a capitalist society and am coerced to produce wealth for someone else just to survive when I could survive by my own 2 hands if I were to farm, or even hunt and gather. except the capitalists stole my birthright and poisoned my home. so if you think its coercive to live in a community, try and imagine what its like for a native American or any number of indigenous who have had their birthright stolen from them and forced to produce wealth for the Master Race.

          • > a large percentage of people are rather worthless when their basic needs are met for them

            “Worthless” to who? You? Society? The state? The wealthy? Are you saying individuals have to justify their existence to others, or that human beings don’t have an inherent right to life?

          • Kevin Leonard | Nov 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm |

            Yeah, it must suck to live in France.

          • “You can’t have a state enforced monopoly currency controlled by private banking interests along with corporations with state granted limited liability and allow corporations to destroy natural capital without legal limit and expect anything other than what we see: a dominated market (mistakenly called free), accelerating inequality and the destruction of our world for corporate profit as corporate power grows as an externalization maximizing enterprise. All the major industries destroy more natural capital than financially create. The faster these industries grow in their current carbon-centric form the faster the planet becomes less hospitable to human life.”

  5. “Socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of
    wealth and heavy taxation of corporations.” [SARCASM] what an idiot! who
    would want to fight the worldwide gap between poor and rich and the
    amazing good and happy super profits of corporations who loves us all
    because they are on God’s side. Also winners don’t do drugs, not like this muslim junkie. [/SARCASM]

    nobody noticed that Star Trek utopia it’s a “COMMUNIST EGALITARIAN
    SOCIETY WHITHOUT CORPORATIONS” right? so, he’s probably a trekky or

    PS: I’m very disappointed with

  6. Anarchy Pony | Oct 30, 2013 at 11:14 pm |

    As opposed to Camron Wiltshire’s fantasy of a Capitalist individualist hierarchical utopia.

    • So individualism bothers you? private property? hierarchy? So do you own your property or does the state? Do you own the fruit of your labor or does the state? Where do you stand ponysan?

      • Brave New World | Oct 31, 2013 at 8:14 am |

        Camron is right to focus on how important private property is. Some of you are missing the point. You think we have it bad now? Wait until the state can come in and literally dictate where the wealth goes. You think they’ll be fair? Not a chance. We are slaves now, yes, but we are allowed the small sovereignty of private property and being able to accrue wealth. If we allow the world’s wealth to be distributed by a global computer brain, as someone like Russel Brand, or the Venus Project would have us do, it’s going to be much worse than the admittedly terrible form of crony capitalism that we currently have. Read Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and you’ll have an idea of what the “socialist utopia” will really be like.

        • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:22 am |

          Should we take your comment as satire? Or ought we to be happy with crumbs?

        • If you give the state the power to protect private property, you give the state the power to take private property.

        • Rus Archer | Oct 31, 2013 at 10:43 am |

          we don’t need private property
          use and maintenance
          even now private property = myth
          life on loan

        • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:51 am |

          Private property is and always has been a gratuity for compliance.

        • And yet Orwell fought for communism. Literally. Like, with a gun.

          (By the way, Orwell was in the communist POUM. The anarchists were CNT-FAI)

      • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:20 am |

        Individualism is sollipsism in practice. For real individualism read Max Stirner. Try following through with his teachings. It gets lonely.

        • Individualism and collectivism are both aspects of reality. To deny or attempt to eradicate either is error.

          • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 10:55 am |

            That graphic resonates with me insofar as Rand was not an individualist and Marx was not a collectivist. Rand relied on the communist tendencies of others to bring about her ‘individualist’ critique of the world; while, Marx relied on the epiphenomenon of modern political economy–capitalism–to offer a ‘collectivist’ critique of what he thought was an individualist-driven world.

          • I totally approve of that interpretation.

          • Kevin Leonard | Oct 31, 2013 at 12:17 pm |

            You had to put Rand in there.

            How about just “I” and “we”?

          • Rand: Capitalism, because we should act out of material self-interest.

            Marx: Communism, because we should act out of material self-interest.

            The Cold War is over, guys. I’m pretty sure Sweden won.

        • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 10:42 am |

          Even taking it down a notch to autotelicism will garner you little favor or understanding.

        • Individualism:
          a. Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence.

          b. Acts or an act based on this belief.
          a. A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person’s economic goals.

          b. A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group.
          a. The quality of being an individual; individuality.

          b. An individual characteristic; a quirk.

          and then.

          Solipsism : a theory in philosophy that your own existence is the only thing that is real or that can be known

      • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 3:10 pm |

        Property is not an immutable thing, defined only one way for all of eternity. It is largely a myth; something which was created (same as the whole concept of race was created) in order to justify the benefits to some while they oppress others. Go back enough in time and such concepts of property not only change, but eventually disappear. At some point someone said, “This thing here, this land, is mine.” But who gave that person the right to do so?
        King Arthur: I am your king.

        Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.

        King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.

        Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?

        [Angelic music plays… ]

        King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.

        Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

        Arthur: Be quiet!

        Dennis the Peasant: You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

        Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!

        Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

        Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!

        Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!

        Arthur: Bloody Peasant!


        And “individualism”? How do you define that, exactly? You and I and everyone else breathes the same air, so where´s the separation there? Magnify a billion times to look at your arm and you won´t find a line where you begin and end — there is no line. Your skin breathes. You didn´t invent the language you use to communicate, so most of your thinking was shaped by others who invented words and concepts for you — so where´s the hyper “individualism” you suggest exists, exactly? You drive cars or take buses that others made, created from ideas that many many others came up with over time, and on roads that others paved for you to use. You die and your wealth and possessions don´t go with you; both you and your possessions return to the earth.

        So, what, exactly, is your definition of “individualism”?

        • So mind if I come and take all of your stuff? You do? Too bad, your just atoms like me and everyone else now fork it over!

          • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 4:02 pm |

            Your comment oversimplifies, takes things to an extreme, so as to conveniently avoid the main point I put forth.

            Do you believe that one person should be able to own the whole planet, everything, including all human beings on the planet? My guess is that you would say, “No.” So you believe in limits on ownership. The question then is a matter of where and how to put those limits — not whether there should be no limits at all or total limits.

            Confusing “ownership” with fulfilling what needs we have for survival, and even for a basic decent life, does not serve clear thinking.

            Why is it that you do not seem to critique the vast overtaking of stuff by the super rich? Okay for them to do so? There is far more welfare for the wealthy and big business than welfare for anyone else:


          • I agree in a level playing field and the right to maintain your property boundaries whether the property is your body, your home or anything else you acquire through effort, ingenuity or inheritance. When we get into scales and past violations which have created wealth, yes then the picture grows more complicated. Primarily we should assert our rights to do what we like with what we have earned and to avoid those who presume they have the right to do what they think is best with our property.

          • A sovereign is the king of his own castle/temple/church/mosque/being. We don’t need anyone else to corral and control us. Live and let live, non violence, non aggression principles of mutual interaction or voluntaryism provide us with a path to peace and respect.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 5:00 pm |

            Without violence how will you protect your sovereignty?

          • Fyi.

            : the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.
            : great destructive force or energy

          • and
            : the act of defending yourself, your property, etc.
            : skills that make you capable of protecting yourself during an attack

          • Anti-Crowley | Nov 3, 2013 at 6:41 pm |

            Violent Self-Defense
            : the act of defending yourself, your property by the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property with skills that make you capable of protecting yourself during an attack.

          • If by “let live” you include heavily restricting pollution of the air I breathe, water I drink, and food I eat, then I agree. If you believe the market will effectively regulate such pollution, then I disagree.

          • I agree with restricting desecration of natural habitats. The market can in fact correct with an informed public but that requires media regulation not being overseen by crony monarchies such as the FCC. We have to rethink our assumptions and definitions as they love for us to be utterly confounded. Thank you for your comment Andrew. Cheers.

          • I think of a free market more as a (not the) goal than as a means. I’m very skeptical of their power to solve problems, just as you’re skeptical of democracy.

          • moremisinformation | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:04 pm |

            Out of curiosity, do you believe that governments are effectively regulating such pollution?

          • Absolutely not.

  7. yeah, many examples of horrible dictatorial Socialism.
    how is capitalism’s track record, though?

    • Well what do you mean by “capitalism” do you consider our current system where more adults are dependent on the gov’t (socialismesque wouldn’t you say) than hold down full time jobs? Perhaps it is time we define some terms.

      • What type of economy best describes American business practices overall? Let’s be specific. What do you think?

        • Organized Crime: Bureaucratic/corporate operations

          • Soft slavery.

          • So then why don’t we say that instead of “Capitalism”? My point being they seize the language of those they wish to enslave first and prevent constructive dialog or conversation. This is what I am attempting to prompt Echar to do. Take the next step beyond monkey heuristics 😉 Siriusly (don’t take me) it’s time we upgrade the conversations here at disinfo don’t you think?

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 5:58 am |

            You sure Russel Brand is not just some dude? What if it turned out he was a Luke Rudkowski fan?

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 6:00 am |

            I guess I’d like to see more of a Jeffersonian democracy type deal.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 6:05 am |

            What do you think about redistribution of land?

          • Cortacespedes | Oct 31, 2013 at 7:41 am |

            Georgism is very interesting. Seems like everyone has forgotten about Henry George.

            But the United States, along with most of the world now, has no ethos. Every economic system is doomed to failure.

            Because the most significant component, human folly, is never fully factored in.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 8:06 am |

            I think the Hopi Indian elders and some other indigenous elders know the score. I think without human folly there would be no Western Civilization. Oswald Spengler knew it wouldn’t live forever. I think Western Civilization is going over the dam.

          • I’m for some amount of it.

          • emperorreagan | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:43 am |

            So is the World Bank, oddly enough. They’ve basically come around on the last 20 years of their policy being stupid and ineffectual.

          • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:43 am |

            The implication behind ‘capitalism’ is…..ehem….capital. Which is to say that resources denominated in some currency form are used to manage the productive labour of masses of individuals. What’s so difficult to understand about that?

          • Currency is not capital, for one thing.

          • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:00 am |

            Currency is the denominating factor of material capital.

          • That in itself may be a major problem.

          • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:28 am |

            Now we’re cooking with gas!

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:29 am |

            “Currency” very literally, is the current ascribed value of capital be it production or resource.

        • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Oct 31, 2013 at 7:33 am |

          Omnicidal Coercivism

          • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:46 am |

            That’s unique and memorable. Too bad i’m too drunk to remember it right now.

        • Brave New World | Oct 31, 2013 at 8:10 am |

          Oligarchical neo-feudalism.

        • To me, it looks like corporate/state capitalism, aka fascism.

      • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:41 am |

        I’m not Marxist, and I’ve written papers against Marxism, but I think Marx best defines capitalism as the mode of production where those who use their labour to create a product, but don’t own the product at the end are a part of the capitalist system. To wit, capitalism is about those who create not owning their own creations; and that translates into wage slavery in modern terms.

      • well, im not just talking about large scale, national forms of capitalism(though that, too, is wicked) even small scale local capitalism is wretched. think about black markets, manipulative marketing schemes, wage slavery, and the idea that accruing capital is more important than cooperating with yer community and the earth.
        but, yeah, socialism isn’t the only alternative to capitalism.

      • an interesting look at different economic forms

  8. Dunno guys, anyone who feigns ignorance on the Federal Reserve system is nothing but a gatekeeper in my mind. What does Russell have to say about those who are really running the show, you know the central bankers? Heard of em? Aware?

    • I hate big banks and banking and bankers but when they rip us off and
      do us down with derivatives and foreclosures and bundles, I roll my
      eyes. However when I see that I’m getting a £3.50 surcharge at a cash
      machine I want to put their fucking windows through. This is the selfish
      impulse the right expertly engages but ought to belong to the left. We
      have to see that all these things are connected. We have succumbed to an
      ideology that is 100 per cent corrupt and must be overthrown.

      Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”

      • Big Banks does not equal The Federal Reserve system. “This is the selfish impulse the right expertly engages but ought to belong to the left.” What does this mean to you I wonder? Also calling for “Revolution” means nothing if you do not know what you are railing against now does it. If Russel is ignorant of the FED, he is simply not qualified to instruct anyone on economic policy period. He has defined no terms here, thus as he calls for “massive redistribution of wealth”, you should keep in mind is that he is advocating for his favorite form of government (control) to dominate. Nothing else. No plans, no actions, just vitriolic bombast that hipster know nothings flock too apparently. No offense to you of course. Check this out.

        “Russel Brand, I’m glad you care, I’m glad you see there is a problem, all you are doing is condoning a new massive authoritarian plan of initiating violence, and that is what wealth redistribution is.” -Larken Rose

        • Big Banks does not equal The Federal Reserve system.

          banking and bankers may suggest the federal reserve.

          What does this mean to you I wonder?

          I have no idea, honestly I wanted to shove it in your face. Which I did, you now have egg on your face. I found this with a simple google search. Kind of how Red Lice man suggested Brand to do.

          Do you honestly think he’s ignorant of the Federal Reserve?

          Read the article if it’s that big of a deal to you. It’s very long, and probably goes into detail. Like I said in my OP I am not advocating socialism. I just know what I feel is the moral thing t odo, and it doesn’t involve greed nor violence.

          I assure you I am not rich enough to be a hipster, nor old enough to be a hippy. I follow what I feel is right, and if you feel the need to box me in with your labels, then that is your trip.

          As for Brand, socialism, capitalism, lefties, righties… I don’t know. It’s all so ugly to me. So stupid, but most everyone plays the game. I feel the same about pro sports, reality tv, and most pop stars. Brand bugged the shit out of me at first, he still bugs me a bit. To be honest.

          I liked some of what Brand had to say, I didn’t care much for what you shared. I had the same reaction I had to it the first time I watched a James Randi video. My first thought, what a dick.

          • You are having a reaction to your own cognitive dissonance. Don’t kill the messengers. Did you see the Larken Rose video?

          • The messenger killed his own message, by being so arrogant and is now throwing a tantrum.

          • ……Is this your excuse for not dealing with the message? Do you really have nothing to say about Brand’s supposed policy suggestions? Does the FED exist in your world or do you blink it away?

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 6:12 am |

            So, hey Camron, catch me up on the dogma, what is abolishing the Fed and bringing back a gold standard and getting rid of all income tax supposed to do again?

          • The gold standard is actually (marginally) dumber than debtmoney in my opinion. Money should be backed by actual capital and production (things people actually exchange and use), not hunks of limited material.

          • emperorreagan | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:40 am |

            The US’s wealthy, conservative business community has kept the dream alive since FDR (about not only the gold standard, but the entire New Deal), with critiques tinged with the threat of socialism and hints of Jewish conspiracies.

          • The Jooze! Oh no, the JOOOOOOOZE!

          • emperorreagan | Oct 31, 2013 at 12:03 pm |

            They run the world, you know. In a world with no Jews, we’d still be on the gold standard and there’d be no minimum wage to take dollars away from Jesus Christ’s closest servants in the American Chamber of Commerce.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:55 am |


          • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 1:25 pm |

            I wasn’t being sarcastic, Camron. For what its worth I don’t think doctrinaire Libertarianism is any worse than docrinaire Marxism and I think both have their good points. As far as Socialism goes, advanced nations which are MORE socialist than the US seem to enjoy a higher standard of living, such as longer life spans, greater literacy, health, income etc. Maye the US and the former USSR represented two extremes that are on the way out, and some other nations have found a happy medium. Its been so long since we had the FED and income tax I am having a hard time picturing what life would be like without it.

          • I didn’t say bring back the gold standard Ted. It’s not a horrible idea except we have already absconded with so much gold it wouldn’t be fair for those we’ve stolen from. Now income tax gives every working Joe like you and me the right to spend his own money as he sees fit without being forced to fund evil.

          • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:39 am |

            Policy is the small mind’s way of coping with necessary changes that need to happen at the microcosmic level.

          • Did you go to some seminar or something? How to be trivium and rule the world?

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 11:08 am |

            In his mind he’s throwing the Trivium.

          • Trivium Method, don’t be scared Calypso_1, a little logic is a good thing.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 31, 2013 at 4:10 pm |

            No Camron, as abundantly illustrated by yourself, a little logic is a benighted chasm of self-delusion. And in that, there is a great deal to be feared.

          • It is amazing that you are the antagonizer here and people still blame me for responding in kind…..

          • *rolls eyes

          • Right, being dismissive and then mocking me is not antagonizing. I imagine a guy being arrested for a domestic saying to the police. “she didn’t know her place. She started it”.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 3:52 am |

            my friend, all this fool enjoys is seeing the comment count go up on his posts.

          • Oh I know. I cut my teeth on people loonier than this person, but I get your gentle word and will cease feeding.

        • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:37 am |

          It’s not about the Fed, nor central banks, nor bankers per se. It’s about interest. It’s always been about usury. That guarantees all of the symptoms of our complex system you see. To say that is the Fed or a particular aspect of our social circumstances is to lose sight of the larger paradigm that manages each of our lives. Making money from money is the only problem. Once we all understand that, everything will change.

  9. Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 5:16 am |

    I don’t think he sounded that good on the big interview. I think he was good saying little snippets but sitting down for any length of time there is not much there but Occupy Wall street slogans. I think he is just a comedic actor with some left wing political views. I don’t see any overarching conspiracy. To me its silly to argue about.

    • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 5:25 am |

      The Libertarians aren’t going to win and the left wingers aren’t win, meaning neither of these groups are going to get exactly what they want. They will just influence peoples thinking. No one is getting rid of the Fed or the IRS and neither is anyone going to use these for “massive redistribution of wealth” any time soon.

      • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:30 am |

        Not as long as the ‘wealth’ is denominated in Benny bucks, they aren’t. It’s physically impossible to redistribute an interest-bearing debt-based currency. I try to make that point as often as I can–and it’s a motherfucking linchpin–but few listen.

    • When millions of people pay their attention and are incited by another know nothing b celebrity thrust upon the mainstream, I tend to worry.

      • Kevin Leonard | Oct 31, 2013 at 4:00 pm |

        Is he being thrust upon us? I think he’s being picked up by mainstream media because his controversy sells. Even Salon’s Lennard, who normally covers “hard” news felt the need to weigh in on Brand. Surely she didn’t break out of her normal routine just for ratings?!?

        • Ever looked at Project Mockingbird Kevin? It’s very telling.

          • Kevin Leonard | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:10 pm |

            Sure, I have. I don’t watch mainstream media, unless I[‘m specifically going to see what official narrative they are pushing. But Brand is getting traction on the internet. And like I have indicated here, and elsewhere, even people who don’t share his philosophy are “getting on the Brand wagon” and riding the ratings wave. He’s good for business. I think it’s a fallacy to consider every media sensation to be manufactured.

            But I got to ask, why the fuck would someone vote down your question? Seriously. Downvoting a legitimate question is irrational.

      • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 4:07 pm |

        Maybe you are actually less cynical of the mainstream than I am. I can’t fault you for that! Personally though Brand strikes me as an idealist also. You may have more in common with him than you think!

  10. Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 5:30 am |

    I guess I am still a hippy/Libertarian. If there is any conspiracy its getting the hippies and Libertarians fighting about Russel Brand instead of working together at dismantling the military industrial complex.

    • Well, pointing out to clueless leftists the fact they are advocating for greater slavery does require someone speak up after all. That being said I’m sure the libertarians will continue to advocate for greater freedom from statism. As for the hippies, well, they will follow whatever pied piper sings their favorite tune usually… As long as he looks like Jesus man!

  11. Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 5:35 am |

    I don’t begrudge anyone a fortune if earned honestly.

  12. Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 6:36 am |

    I guess my view is I don’t really like big business or big government. I don’t see either as really a good thing. Instead of figuring out a way to abolish one or the other I am interested in working outside the system I guess. I try not to get too stuck on anyone political ideology. I really don’t see any examples in history of some group having a quasi-religious ideology that has an answer for everything and then coming into power and putting their plan in place to the letter.

    Doctrinaire Capitalists and Doctrinaire Marxists both lament that their ideology has “never been tried.” That’s just the way life is. Nothing is ever going to be all one way.

  13. Brave New World | Oct 31, 2013 at 8:17 am |

    What an asshole! I can’t believe anyone is jumping on Brand’s bandwagon when he can’t even be bothered to give two fucks about the people in slavery to make his luxury items. What a joke. Do not trust this dilettante socialist.

    “I deplore corporate colonialism but not viscerally. The story isn’t
    presented in a way that rouses me. Apple seems like such an affable
    outfit; I like my iPhone. Occasionally I hear some yarn about tax
    avoidance or Chinese iPhone factory workers committing suicide because
    of dreadful working conditions but it doesn’t really bother me, it seems
    so abstract. Not in the same infuriating, visceral, immediate way that
    I get pissed off when I buy a new phone and they’ve changed the fucking
    chargers, then I want to get my old, perfectly good charger and lynch
    the executives with the cable. They make their own product, which
    they’ve already sold me, deliberately obsolete just to rinse a few more
    quid out of us.”

    • Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:35 am |

      Excellent quote. Perhaps you’ve missed the nuance behind it. What should expect him to do, shed his character and launch into a long rant about Chinese iPhone factory workers committing suicide? Absolutely not. I wouldn’t expect that of him anymore than I would expect you to give up your day job and squat in an abandoned Detroit home protesting gentrification or to pitch a tent in Parliament Square protesting foreign policy like Brian Haw. Few rarely embark on such efforts. But the nuance behind this quote is the fact that he even mentions it. He cares enough to sarcastically throw it in as he relates to his audience. He massages his audience. He already knows what you know; he’s already motivated by the same objectives as you; it’s his means that are different. He works within, much like you work within whatever it is you do.

      • Brave New World | Nov 3, 2013 at 4:17 pm |

        The least we can do about slave labor is give a fuck about peoples’ suffering, and try to boycott goods we know are made with slave labor. Which Russell Brand can’t be bothered to do, by his own admission.

        • Kevin Leonard | Nov 3, 2013 at 6:06 pm |

          On what type of computer are you using to engage this internet forum?

        • Rhoid Rager | Nov 4, 2013 at 8:22 am |

          The least we can do about slave labour is learn to make the things we need from the resources we have geographicaly close to us. I’m not inclined to get caught up in scrutinizing and criticizing Brand’s tactics. I already have my heroes– Brian Haw was one–and I’m not out for more. The only thing worth appreciating about this is his vocalization, as opposed to almost every other mainstream outlet spouting off the praises of globalization. To get caught up in anything else–such as his lifestyle or personal convictions–is to get lost in our own regrets about not having done enough in our own lives. See the latest Disinfo post on the Law of Projection–a keen observation on a recurring theme in life: the recursive loop of outside observation, interaction and inner reflection. To wit, eEverything outside of you is a metaphor for contemplation.

  14. Rhoid Rager | Oct 31, 2013 at 9:16 am |

    At 67 comments now, you’re all part of the wave of time…the bit of desperately-needed novelty within a recursive loop, as McKenna may have referred to it. So is Bertrand Russell…errr….I mean Russell Brand. Bask in that.

  15. doodahman | Oct 31, 2013 at 12:04 pm |

    If somebody with celebrity cache questions the foundation of capitalism and also makes a splash, you can count on his or her fellow limousine liberals to attack him on whatever irrelevancies they can muster. The faux Left centrists function to squash all real dissent from any source that expresses real Left ideas or principles.
    We don’t need Buddhas and Messiahs to handle economic and social issues, DUH. We just need common sense, and a little SOLIDARITY– both of which are undermined constantly by the faux Left that pretends we have to wait for a Buddha or a Messiah. We had a Buddha and a Messiah already. What we need is solidarity and a little STFU from some quarters who do the bidding of the system while pretending to be against it.

  16. Robert Bilicki | Oct 31, 2013 at 1:29 pm |

    I used to think like this but, I was cured…

  17. gustave courbet | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:23 pm |

    Without listening to Red Ice’s critique of Brand (I have a pretty good idea what Henrik Palmgren’s perspective is), I would point out that he is coming from a different intellectual perspective than the libertarian crowd, and as such, sees different solutions for the same problems, such as corporate oligarchy. I am always disappointed when people who essentially agree about the problems we all share, start trying to dismember each others’ philosophies instead of searching for common ground. Here in the States, libertarian populists and lefty OWSers gripe about the same things from different perspectives, like the blind men and the elephant, but find themselves divided over solutions. If they could bridge what is often a cultural gap, we could have an actual broad based movement that could upset the status quo. Sigh.

  18. happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:37 pm |

    Most “libertarians” in the USA are not libertarians in the sense that the term has historically been used and how it is viewed in the rest of the world. It has been warped toward a kind of Herbert Spencer / Ayn Rand survival of the fittest pathology.

    Ayn Rand was a great admirer of sociopathic thinking:

    “William Edward Hickman, who along with Nietzsche’s concept of the “Uberman” or Superman, the same idea that animated Hitler’s idea of the Master Race, are the sources from which Rand would draw her characters traits throughout her writing career. Uberman is behind her idea of the so called productive members, the mega rich Venture Capitalists of society as opposed to the rest of us average people who in her own words are nothing but moochers and parasites even if we work hard for a living every day. While these productive members, the Capitalists are her Ubermen Hickman was the Uberman’s personality right on up to the charcater of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. So who was William Edward Hickman?

    William Edward Hickman was in 1927 the most famous person in America. His fame was based on being a violent serial killing child murderer. In 1927 he kidnapped, murdered, and dismembered the body of a 12 year old girl. It is even farther alleged he had opined that he wanted to kill someone just to see what it was like. He later confessed to even more murders.

    Ayn Rand knew all of this as she opined that he was a beautiful soul and that he was the finest example of what it was to be a man. Why?

    Because he had no feelings for or connection to others and no ability to empathize with the feelings and needs of others. This cold ruthless inability to empathize or to feel in any way connected with the rest of society permeates her thinking and animates her ideals all the way through writing The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.”

    What Brand said in the interview was spot on. He could have gone further to point out how the BBC has a long history of supporting the oppressive systems we live under, which is why they painted Brand´s comments in a negative light during and after he spoke out.

    • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:44 pm |

      I think most modern Nietzsche Scholars would disagree with your characterization of Nietzsche ideas being the founding principles of the Third Reich.

      • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:49 pm |

        Wasn´t my characterization, but that from the article. My point was based around what Rand herself claimed to admire: a serial killer she viewed as “real man” for his independent thinking.

        • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 pm |

          Well, I think people often treat independent thinkers as serial killers. I think there will always be a tension between the true individual and the collective. I think the fear of the collective is that the individual will cause harm to the collective, to their security and status quo. But I would NOT say, then that is follows that the reverse(converse?)is true, that anyone who causes harm to the collective is some type of superman. They might just be a serial killer.

          • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 3:46 pm |

            Independent thinkers, as we know, come in many varieties. And yes, many are treated poorly because they challenge more “normal”ized views. But the issue is the quality / intention of the thought, whether independent or not. Serial killers have independent thought that is super pathological. That kind of independent thinking is not, in my view, worth admiring one bit. Independent thinkers like who promote positive, healthy ideas, great. Rand was not one of those. She promoted a kind of extreme individualism that, while appealing on the surface, is deeply sociopathic. If we want to talk about positive forms of individualism (assuming we can even come to an agreement on what “individualism” actually is) I gladly welcome that.

      • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 2:57 pm |

        Also, the article does not say “the founding principles of” but “animated” by.

        • Ted Heistman | Oct 31, 2013 at 3:44 pm |

          I think Hitler/Nazis were animated (partly) by a misunderstanding of Nietzsche. Anyone who has actually read Nietzsche would know t for example that Nietzsche

          1. Hated the anti-intellectualism of anti-semites
          2. Hated German Nationalism and renounced his German citizenship

          3.Thought the only reason Germans had accomplished anything great was probably due the the influences from Slavic peoples (whom the Nazi’s considered inferior)

          4.Considered himself alternately as Polish or “A good European”

          • happypedro | Oct 31, 2013 at 3:52 pm |

            Sure. One thing is what is written, or what the author intended or thought; another is the interpretation. Texts as rich as the writings of Nietzsche can easily be bended to reflect one´s viewpoint. The Bible, it seems to me, is famous for essentially the same reason Michael Jackson was/is: the more facets someone or something has, the more people can see themselves reflected back to them. One person reads the Bible and feels justified in killing, while another feels they should never kill anyone ever. When folks want to misunderstand, they will find what they need to “justify” it.

  19. Monkees Kool Aid Jingle

    Remember everyone, Make friends with Kool-Aid!

  20. I found the actual video
    infinitely more enlightening than this biased infowars-like rant.
    yeah, it’s my opinion, we all think different i see.

  21. Fusionism | Nov 1, 2013 at 12:02 am |

    I watched the Brand interview and passed it on to a few friends to watch. To be honest it gave me a sliver of hope. On the other hand I couldn’t listen to this Red Ice clip for very long though – agree or disagree with him sure, but one thing Russell Brand is definitely not is an idiot. Just because he is a star he shouldn’t have an opinion? Perhaps because he has such a wide audience and people may actually take note of what he is saying as opposed to all the other talking heads on our screens he is a danger?!

    How outlandish! Here we have an extremely popular (and rather good looking and yes rich!) individual who is actually being HONEST in an interview and has some very VALID things to say. Not only that but he is quite a master at putting words together and most importantly I think, he remains LOVING and LIGHT in his attitude, even when he disagrees with the interviewer. He does not seem to identify too much with any one perspective or belief system which is I think the most logical and useful way to be right now, everything is up for debate. It allows for intelligent discussion and when necessary a change of one’s mind rather than steadfast partisan rhetoric.

    There is so much more here for us to take away than just socialism Vs libertarianism or left Vs right; in fact these belief structures are completely besides the point. The message i get is:




    Clearly the system is broken and anyone who would defend it is either absolutely doss or at least mildly mental (or an economist?). The first step is for us to admit it isn’t working and to express what Charles Eisenstein calls: The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible. This is I think what the Occupy Movement is about, this is what we are awakening to.

    I am convinced we don’t need masters/doctrines/priests/governments/systems
    of control to tell us what is right and what is wrong, what we should do and
    what we shouldn’t. Eisenstein (who is a self professed ‘degrowth activist and
    degrowth theorist) puts forward the idea of a ‘Gift Economy’ and perhaps that is where are heading.

    The point is I couldn’t possibly give an answer to what the new system should definitely be (though I would WHOLLY agree it is none of the ‘isms’ or anything we have tried before), and I think Russell is really saying he doesn’t know either. But we do know what it shouldn’t be, and the current system is most definitely on the way out. A new movement is growing, with no doctrine, no borders, no rules, no guidelines and yet, the hopefully-not-too-distant goals are becoming clearer by the day albeit being rather blurry up ahead…

    Hold on if you dare, or dare to let go and step joyfully into the new paradigm that
    awaits us… (but in the meantime I have to pay my rent so better get back to

  22. erte4wt4etrg | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:11 pm |

    Karl Marx looks like Yaweh & Brand looks like Jesus- hahaha red ice is great, first thing I thought about the guy

  23. There is a similar article on from leftists who shoot the messenger. The comments on that article are far more instructive than the article itself.

    “The Revolution Will Not Be (Russell) Brand-ed”

  24. Gforce27 | Nov 7, 2013 at 2:28 pm |

    “Senseless speach?” Hm. It made sense to me…

  25. Gforce27 | Nov 7, 2013 at 2:36 pm |

    Kripey, do you see the discussion below? Everywhere I go to check out what people arAe saying about Brand’s tv appearance on the BBC, people start discussing Capitalism. WTF, if that’s all this guy does is get people talking like this, then I say bravo to him. Furthermore, I don’t know what interview this writer watched, but I found him intelligent and articulate, and I did not think his 3 second explanation of how he might change things to be a ridiculous fantasy. Frankly, I also question the assumption that he has no right to speak on the subject due to his personal wealth. He has the right to speak about whatever he wants–and whether or not he’s got millions, I still agreed with him. If he wants to use his personal fortune and platform gifted to him by celebrity to get a larger percentage of people talking about these issues, I say more power to him.

  26. Nobody ever mentions anarchy in these debates. Maybe they just think it’s a bunch of goons who want to throw petrol bombs. To me it represents the synthesis that the thesis/anti-thesis of captilasim and socialism give rise to. Anyway here’s Benjamin Tucker on the subject.

  27. I am an avid listener of Red Ice radio, great stuff.

    You may have a point about Russel Brand and I am nothing but open minded but having to attack the character with lies?

    He is a recovering drug addict. Why attack him with such a petty “snorting his cocaine” bit?

Comments are closed.