Capitalism

Millionaire Russell Brand Dismisses Criticism of His Book Because Journalists are "Highly Paid"

|

Russell Brand reads from his book
YouTube

Professional idiot comedian Russell Brand has a new book out, Revolution, pimping his half-baked ideas about an anti-capitalist revolution. Michael Moynihan (Reason contributing editor) read it for The Daily Beast, and dismissed it for its mistakes and misquotes and for being unfunny and unreadable. He pulled one choice quote to show what Brand's writing is like:

"This attitude of churlish indifference seems like nerdish deference contrasted with the belligerent antipathy of the indigenous farm folk, who regard the hippie-dippie interlopers, the denizens of the shimmering tit temples, as one fey step away from transvestites."

That quote, in turn, was used to create a meme where Brand's verbosity is interrupted by "PARKLIFE!", a reference to a 1994 Blur song. Buzzfeed explains it, and catches Brand's response to his criticism, via Twitter: "It's weird how highly paid, privately educated journalists who work for the corporate media attack my book Revolution."

Russell Brand is reportedly worth around $15 million, the kind of money his ideology says is "hoarded" when it's all in one place or one person. Nevertheless his book, Revolution, an anti-capitalist screed, is available for sale at capitalist enterprises like Amazon. Despite the possibility in 2014 to release a manifesto like Brand's at no cost to the reader over the internet—and Brand's fame would guarantee a wide audience—Brand chose the more traditionally capitalist route of charging good money for his book. It's his right in a market we would deem free, but it wouldn't be in the kind of market Brand would impose on the rest of us. Weird indeed.

NEXT: Pirate Bay Co-Founder Arrested in Thailand

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He played a pretentious douche in Leaving Sarah Marshall. Not much of a stretch apparently.

    1. Professional idiot comedian Russell Brand

      You had it right the first time, Ed.

    1. I actually kind of enjoyed that movie. But when they spun off his character into his own movie, I didn’t think it worked so well. “Funnier in small doses,” as they say.

      1. Funnier in homeopathic doses, I’d say.

  2. OK, that quote is truly “WTF am I reading?

    1. So it wasn’t just me, that really was just a bunch of multi-syllabic word salad passed off as feaux intellectualism (see, I can do it too).

  3. Too bad the book sucks, otherwise I’d consider downloading a bootleg torrent copy…since Brand presumably wouldn’t mind me sticking it to Amazon.

    1. When I was in Amsterdam, I took a boat tour hosted by an anarchist. He spent 20 minutes telling us how and why we should get rid of money.

      The tour was free, but at the end he asked everyone to pay what they could while acknowledging his own hypocrisy on account that he “had to pay the bills.”

      1. Well that puts him a few notches above Brand.

  4. The only thing worse than Russell Brand is the reality that enough people enjoy his idiocy in order for him to generate that wealth.

    It makes me sad for the world.

    1. First Amazon review:

      Russell Brand mixes wild stream-of-consciousness rants informed by interviews with Naomi Klein, anarchist David Graeber, and economist Thomas Piketty, with personal memoirs, calls to arms and, ultimately, a call to love.

      1. That “review” sounds made-up. By the publisher, that is.

        1. Anyone who references Klein and Graeber (who is not an anarchist, but a full blooded communist) is an outright retard.

          1. I found Graeber’s book, Debt, both fascinating and infuriating. I recommend it with the understanding that every time he steals the base of calling today’s American markets “Capitalism” you’ll probably want to throw the book across the room. But the critique of debt as war money is valid and valuable.

            1. I don’t disagree. I just can’t stand his definition bending. You can’t have an argument with someone like that, which I am certain is part of the strategy.

      2. That’s a one star review right? right?

        1. 5 baby, all the way

      3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-show.html

        I feel like I should use his quotes about giving a handjob to a stranger for a tv show to describe his book.

        1. This might be the best Daily Mail picture caption I’ve seen:

          “Ladies man: Russell is known for being heterosexual and was previously married to Katy Perry”

    2. I would argue that what Brand does is not ‘generating wealth’. People hand him money and he does a monkey dance.

      1. ^THIS^

        And a retarded monkey dance to boot. Has he actually been in anything remotely successful recently? If memory serves, his last film I can remember, the remake of Arthur, tanked at the box office rather spectalularly.

      2. Unfortunately, in the sense of subjective value he is generating wealth.

        They obviously derive some kind of gain from the transaction. Otherwise, people wouldn’t ask him to dance.

  5. “This attitude of churlish indifference seems like nerdish deference contrasted with the belligerent antipathy of the indigenous farm folk, who regard the hippie-dippie interlopers, the denizens of the shimmering tit temples, as one fey step away from transvestites.”

    The worst part is that he was probably so pleased with this sentence when he wrote it that he surely gave his cock a couple of hard tugs.

    1. What? He doesn’t have an orphan to do that cock tugging for him!

      See that is why I could never be anything but a libertarian.

    2. I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping for Brand to be featured in an upcoming Warty Hugeman time travel adventure.

    3. well his book is a call to arms and, ultimately, a call to love. #SelfLoveIsLove

  6. Professional idiot comedian Russell Brand has a new book out, Revolution, pimping his half-baked ideas about an anti-capitalist revolution.

    Just a few posts ago where Ron Bailey talks about some quack who is very concerned about the fact that leftists’ predominant numbers in the social sciences, I told our resident little red Marxian (Tony, if you didn’t know already) that after 15 years of discussing religion, freedom and economics with leftists, I always found most of them banal, superficial, naive and stupid. Some were very eloquent, but not very smart.

    Russel Brand is the living and most well-known proof of what I talk about. The guy has a superficial knowledge of the ideas he espouses and a very tenuous grasp of the subject he criticizes, mainly Capitalism and Free Markets. And he’s arrogant enough to talk about these subjects like an expert.

    1. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about:

      Harvard University psychologist Daniel Glibert explained:

      “Liberals may be more interested in new ideas, more willing to work for peanuts, or just more intelligent.”

      And for Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert, those things are supposed to be mutually-exclusive, no?

      I mean, working for peanuts can’t be the hallmark of smartness, or is it? A smart person can’t simply be one who is open to any new idea no matter how ridiculous or preposterous, correct?

      What an idiot. You read his interpretation of the situation, you read his three possible explanations, none of which are possibly related to one another, and people [ok, Tony] still think that leftists are smart?

    2. Sometimes, especially with economics, I feel that I might know just enough about a subject to be dangerous with it. Then I realize that because I feel that way, it probably means that I’m aware of what I don’t know and therefore less likely to make an ass of myself.

      It really is strange how people go to college and pursue degrees that only give them a superficial understanding of what they’re studying because they aren’t required to make sure it’s consistent with other fields, or reality for that matter.

  7. Russell Brand is reportedly worth around $15 million, the kind of money his ideology says is “hoarded” when it’s all in one place or one person. Nevertheless his book, Revolution, an anti-capitalist screed, is available for sale at capitalist enterprises like Amazon. Despite the possibility in 2014 to release a manifesto like Brand’s at no cost to the reader over the internet?and Brand’s fame would guarantee a wide audience?Brand chose the more traditionally capitalist route of charging good money for his book.

    Let’s take a poll (maybe even some millennials will respond!): who thinks Brand is sincere but clueless and doesn’t recognize the evident hypocrisy–and who thinks he’s just realized that there’s a sucker born every minute and that there’s money to be made peddling self-affirming nonsense to the gullible?

    1. I think he likes the sound of it, likes the attention it gets him, and loves the money it earns him.

      I dislike the guy, but the people willing to pay for this drivel deserve losing their money.

    2. 70% the sucker one, 30% the sincere/clueless one.

    3. He thinks he’s some kind of guru of truth, it’s a pure ego-trip for him.

    4. If obvious hypocrisy stopped people from taking orders from leftists, socialism would have stopped somewhere around Eugene V. Debs.

  8. I’ve despised Russell Fucktard since before despising him was cool. I see that’s well placed. What a moron. I refuse to watch his unwatchable movies (tried – gave up) and will not spend a nickel that will find its way to him. Why anyone would pay attention to his prating is beyond me. I hope he dies a horrible death. Soon.

    1. So, still making your mind up, hmmm?

      1. Exactly so. It’s a quandary!

        1. Death by cancer, or death by fire? Tough one, tough one . . . .

          1. Fire is too fast, let’s go with prostate cancer.

          2. Why not both?

            After a long, excruciating battle with cancer he is lying in a hospital bed barely hanging on when one of his life support machines shorts out, causing an electrical fire. His bedclothes become engulfed in flame and he is too weak to escape the fire.

            I guess we could add something else….fireants…yes.

            The short is caused by a swarm of fireants that have invaded his room and have begun to eat away his flesh…

  9. Brand chose the more traditionally capitalist route of charging good money for his book.

    “I may be a socialist twit but I’m not stupid, you know!”

    Wink, wink!

  10. So Russell Brand knows his demographic and is not interested in reaching a wider one. He’s an entertainer making money by giving his audience what they want. I’d like to hate him, but it would be mostly envy and I gave it up for Lent. I’ve just never bothered with the guy and don’t intend to start.

    1. Actually he is interested in reaching a wider one. He’s now going for the “serious NPR set”. He got as far as he could with his washed-up-rock-and-roller comedy bit, but now, like many Sophomore actors, he wants to be… taken seriously.

      1. Maybe. I see it as his base audience “maturing” away from dick jokes and towards self-righteous humorlessness, but we may be having a to-may-to/to-mah-to discussion.

        1. I’m just relieved Katy Perry got out with her integrity intact.

          1. That was my main concern as well.

          2. Looks like she traded way up:
            http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/26/…..ma-tmz-tv/

  11. Lefty hypocrite?! Well, I NEVER!

  12. Moynihan is richer than the pope.

    1. Moynihan is richer than the pope.

      That’s only because his kind are immortal and only vulnerable to sunlight and sugar.

  13. Russell who???

    And you say English is this guy’s primary language? Because I saw a bunch of words that have meaning in English strung together in his quote. And I understood each word’s meaning. But, for the life of me, I can’t see how they make any sense in the way they’re put together.

  14. Meanwhile, Lena Dunham does not condone child sex abuse unless she does it and the child is really into it.

    http://time.com/3556513/lena-d…..ntroversy/

    1. That picture…something something lipstick on a pig….

    2. ENB is on twitter defending Dunham.

      1. It’s a tempest in a teapot. She’s talking about sexual experimentation when she was 7 years old.

        1. No its not. The problem is not what she did. The problem is that she seems to have no idea how fucked up it was or that there was anything wrong with it.

        2. No, its not just that.

          She also talks about grooming her sister as a sex toy while they were growing up, and masturbating while cuddling with her sister as a teenager.

          Don’t fall for the handwaving distraction. If it was only what she did as 7 year old, I would give her a pass. But it was a long-term, sexually driven and exploitive relationship with her younger sister.

      2. Go on…

        1. Does ENB have a sister? Is she hot?

          1. ENB? You bet.

            Her sister? No clue.

      3. If this was a dude his show would be canceled, at least… right? I mean, 7th heaven isn’t on the air anymore.

      4. Really? That is disapointing. I always want to think the best of a pretty girl. Just can’t help it.

        In one sense, what Dunham did is not something she can be held morally responsible for or said to be reflective of who she is as an adult. The problem is not the act. It is the utter and complete lack of remorse or shame on Dunham’s part that is the problem. It is not that she did something deeply weird and depraved as a child. It is that as an adult she still doesn’t seem to understand why it was wrong or feel any sense of shame or remorse about doing it.

        1. Right. Besides, her seven year old vagina peek is one thing, but she also wrote:

          As [Grace] grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying ? What I really wanted, beyond affection, was to feel that she needed me, that she was helpless without her big sister leading her through the world. I took a perverse pleasure in delivering bad news to her ? the death of our grandfather, a fire across the street ? hoping that her fear would drive her into my arms, would make her trust me.

          1. This from a woman, mind you, who thinks two genetically-unrelated adults having consensual sex when one of them has had a glass of wine first constitutes hardcore 1st degree rape.

            Good thing for double standards, or else third wave feminists wouldn’t have any at all.

          2. Wow, that’s just a little fucked.

            1. That’s more than a little fucked. Why is ENB defending her? I mean, I know Bo tried trolling with it earlier but seriously?

              1. Why is ENB defending her?

                Because ENB is a typical tumblr sjw who had an especially convenient libertarian come to Jesus moment about 10 minutes after she booked a writing gig with Reason?

                1. Sadly probably true.

                2. Your threshold for Tumblr SJW may be just a touch too low.

                  1. Yeah yeah, I’ve caught shit for saying it before as well, but ENB is totally immersed in that environment (as her social media will readily attest) and it shows. I don’t think her, uh, “evolution” on, say, the Obamacare birth control mandate was her first since getting hired at Reason, just sayin’.

              2. I looked on twitchy but didn’t see the tweets there. Guessing along the same lines as Bo this morning.

          3. Holy fuck, that’s creepy.

    3. Also noted that Dunham’s apology starts with the word “If”, which by my lights means it’s not a sincere apology at all.

      Read what she wrote…she’s not actually apologizing for anything, except using sexual predator in a comic way.

      Is there a term, akin to a humblebrag, for a non-apology intended to aggrandize the apologizer ?

      1. Narcissistic personality disorder. Or asshole, though honestly it’s hard to tell the difference.

        1. Yes. What she describes in the way of psychologically manipulating her young sister is….psychotic. This is a dangerous person with a heavy dose of creepy.

          1. How has she not been elected yet?

          2. Yes. What she describes in the way of psychologically manipulating her young sister is….psychotic.

            Mozilla Chief Officer donates to a ‘pro-traditional marriage’ group and gets canned because of social pressure. Proggie feminist openly admits to psychologically manipulating her younger sister (and taking various liberties with her) in order to assert a sort of dominance in the relationship and nothing happens.

      2. Is there a term, akin to a humblebrag, for a non-apology intended to aggrandize the apologizer ?

        Douchebaggery? Or just what Restoras said.

  15. I fell like this is covered in a paper published by the Cornell University Psychology Department.

    1. *feel.

  16. If I win the Mega Millions tonight, I’ll be worth about 21x Russell Brand.

    1. You have to divide by 3 to get your actual cash prize after taxes. But it will still be a solid 7.

      1. But you can get the doubler now, so make it 14.

        But she’s not going to win it because I will, and my vote today will change the outcome of the election in Virginia too.

        1. Are you voting for Sarvis to. Also I’m so gonna win, and you shan’t get a slice of my pie, that’s going to Mcauliffe.

          1. I’m voting for Cthulthu. It will be faster that way.

            1. Isn’t Cthulthu slow and lumbering? Might take around the same pace.

              1. Yes, but he spares his followers by offering them a quick death instead of an eternity of madness.

                1. I’ll take the eternity of madness. I bet it’s a pretty wild trip.

    2. But will it change you into something else? Something terrible and insufferable?

      1. Turn her into Nichole?

    3. If you win the mega millions tonight, I offer my monocle polishing services

    4. Sorry Kaptious. I got the winning numbers.

    5. Don’t bother buying your ticket – I already bought the winner…

    6. I’ll bet you 15 million bucks you don’t win. Then I’ll be just as rich as Brand, since I’m guaranteed to win.

    7. Kristen, you’re already worth many, many more times that viz Russell Brand.

      At least, as a human being.

    8. I am sorry Kristen, I already bought the winning ticket.

  17. His quote reminds me of a line of dialogue from Spaced

    Brian: Can I borrow your video recorder?
    Daisy Steiner: What you going to do? Stick it to a canvas as a piece depicting a nation of cathode junkies, selling their imaginations for quick-fix media hits from the Blockbuster syringe?
    Brian: No, I want to record “Ready Steady Cook.”

    Except the Spaced parody of anti-capitalist pretentious metaphors makes more sense than Brand’s actual gobbledygook.

  18. Russell Brand is reportedly worth around $15 million, the kind of money his ideology says is “hoarded” when it’s all in one place or one person.

    Don’t you libertarians know the rules by now? Leftists never have to practice what they preach; only their enemies do. (“Ayn Rand should not have gone on Medicare!”)

    RB could be worth $15 Billion, and as long as he says the things that the cool people want to hear about inequality, it’s all good. He could live in a neighborhood that’s 100% white, but as long as he says “non-leftists are racist” it wouldn’t be a problem. His lifestyle could contribute far more to climate change than yours or mine, but as long as he expresses concern about the environment, he’s forgiven.

    Meanwhile, as for you libertarians? OMG you’re against government, and government built the roads, so stop using roads or you’re a hypocrite!

    1. participation in government is mandatory and forced, participation in capitalism is voluntary

      1. The problem is Brand is vouluntarily participating in capitalism while simultaneously pushing half baked communist bullshit to stupid people. That makes him even more of a hypocrit as far as I’m concerned. I have no choice but to “participate” in government, Brand could publish his idiotic manifesto for free over the internet if he wanted to.

  19. almo 2 days ago

    Mr.Moynihan, the real moron is you, not because you’re attack on Mr. Brand because your attack on his message that MILLION”S of people support and are fighting for the world over, your type of propaganda no longer works..

    FlagShare

    almo 2 days ago
    Michael Moynihan, you are so wrong in so many way’s, anyone who is bringing awareness to the sickness perverted system that we have allowed to enslave us

    will be look back in history as a hero….Russell Brand you rock….of to buy your book

    pjae 2 days ago
    I was looking for an excuse to cut down on unnecessary websites I prowl, thanks for such a one sided and quite frankly appalling piece of journalistic assassination, I won’t be logging into the BEAST again. Sure Brand is flawed, but at least he has the courage of his convictions and is prepared to challenge an outdated and barbaric status quo. Beast, it seems, has showed exactly what it is.

    buzzk_1 2 days ago
    The Daily Beast has become a real right-wing eRag of apologists for hate-mongers like Bill Maher, anti-Iranian Islamophobes and establishment propaganda like this article attacking Russel Brand.

    There probably is no hidden agenda. Just a trollish contrarianism which mixes pseudo-liberal views with conservative click bait.

    1. Man, with a couple of sycophants like that, I could make Charlie Manson look like a two-bit side show.

      1. No you couldn’t. They are probably far more useless than even Manson’s cronies, who actually accomplished a task.

    2. Those comments make Salon’s constant quest for peak retard understandable. They are just giving their customers what they want.

    3. right-wing …apologists for…Bill Maher

      WTF? The DERP burns like a million suns.

      1. That is the thing about the left Bobarian, eventually everyone gets the knock at the door and kicked out of the movement. Maher spends his entire career as a leftist in good standing and in one moment is deemed an enemy of the people.

        1. Well, what the hell are they supposed to have done, John? The guy’s been treading on heresy for awhile now. And they warned him. And he still wouldn’t stop. If they don’t make an example of him, how long before other members of the community might start thinking they can get away with challenging the orthodoxy. And what do you have then? Anarchy! It’s not that they wanted to make him a pariah. He made them do it. By his willfulness.

          1. The hilarious thing is that his crime here is mere intellectual consistency. He hates the one Abrahamic religion that’s still largely hung up on the whole world conquest and scorched earth thing as much as the rest of the left hates the other two Abrahamic religions that moved past that shit half a millennia ago.

            1. True, but when has the enforcement of dogma ever been about intellectual consistency? If you want to play on the left, you’d better be ready to toe the lion without nitpicking about little things like rationality or intellectual consistency.

    4. Uses “you’re” right before correctly using “your.” What is with these types of people?

      1. Whatever you do, don’t lock eyes with ’em. Don’t do it…

  20. That picture looks like Joakim Noah in a hotel room.

  21. The term of the day is “Limousine liberal”.

    Behind all of them is pure contempt for the underclass–and their silly, stupid hope that they, too, can be wealthy one day.

    Why don’t the poor realize that their prosperity can never come from their own hard work? Why don’t they understand that the only way they can ever become anything like wealthy is through government guided by the benevolent wishes of…limousine liberals.

    Fuck all of them and fuck Russell Brand, too.

  22. Brand is basically what happens when you combine years of substance abuse with a Messiah complex. A smug child who is unable to support his own arguments but demands that they are the ‘truth’. When criticized on these positions, he has no strategy beyond painting his opponents as part of the evil structure he despises. It’s a cyclical delusion with no end.

    1. That is an astute comment. But what does President Obama have to do with this?

    2. *Brand is basically what happens when you combine years of substance abuse with a Messiah complex. *

      Brand should go back to his first vocation–fellating dealers for more crack.

      1. basically he is

  23. This book is impossible to refute because it is completely incoherent. It will be a #1 seller just like Piketty’s garbage. And no one will read past the introduction just like Piketty’s garbage.

    1. People read Lena Dunham’s book past the introduction. If someone suffered through that, someone will slog through this sweaty turd.

      1. I am pretty sure whatever intern at Truth Revolt had to slog through that thing to find the parts where she talked about molesting her sister has the worst job in America and is in the running for having the worst job in the known universe.

        1. I heard that’s it what drove Brittany Maynard to finally pull the plug.

          too soon?

          1. It wasn’t the cancer. She was ready for that. It was that her only job offer was reviewing books at Truth Revolt.

  24. Many of Brand’s critics have noted that Revolution is full of vacuous nonsense, like his argument?if that’s the right word?that the economy “is just a metaphorical device. It’s not real, that’s why it’s got the word ‘con’ in it.”

    And Russell Brand has the phrase “sell brand” in it!?!??!

    1. His middle name is Edward, it has WAR IN IT!!!

  25. “It’s weird how highly paid, privately educated journalists who work for the corporate media attack my book Revolution.”

    Maybe the book just sucks.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    1. “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

      And sometimes it’s a dildo.

      1. Or a drug addled idiot.

  26. I have at times enjoyed his comedy. But holy shit is he a fucking moron when it comes to, well almost everything, I guess. He should have stuck to smoking crack and being weirdly offensive while not combing his hair.

    1. He should have stuck to smoking crack and being weirdly offensive while not combing his hair.

      He… has.

      1. All recent pictures I’ve seen seem to indicate that he now combs his hair.

        1. And I mean weirdly offensive like dressing up as Bin Laden right after 911 and going on TV clearly out of his mind on something or other. I think he also used to bring his dealer to work with him. Now that’s entertaining.

          1. Now he dresses up like Che… right after communism killed a kajillion people.

  27. OT — Iowahawk: Lena Dunham cancels book tour to spend more time with sister!

    1. He is a national treasure.

      1. Absolutely.

    2. Shit, that’s funny!

    3. If it’s wrong to laugh at that I don’t want to be right.

  28. For whatever reason, this instantly came to mind while reading this article.

    1. Really? I was getting more of this kind of vibe

      …where Brand’s writings are the people wearing white.

      1. Link got SF’d, but I copied the video code from it over to YT and saved the day.

        1. That last bit where he swings the guys in brown? Those were Che and Castro being used against Brand’s own arguments.

  29. Just walk into any socialist millionaire’s house and try to “redistribute” some of his wealth and see how far that gets you. What appalls me is that there are so many credulous rank and file leftists to listen to them.

    1. The toaster belongs to the people!

    2. What appalls me is that there are so many credulous rank and file leftists to listen to them.

      Cue Tony.

    3. In college I once did something like that, although the guy wasn’t a millionaire. I was listening to a European commie classmate prattle on about how awesome communism is and how private property sucks, so I got up and went to his fridge and grabbed a soda and bag of chips off the counter. When he asked why I was eaing HIS chips and drinking HIS soda, I looked him square in the eye and said “You just said you don’t believe in the concept of private property and that all things should be collectively owned and used by whoever needs them. I was thirsty and hungry so I decided to help myself to some of these collectively owned chips and soda.” We didn’t talk much after that.

  30. MY CRITICS ARE ALL CAPITALISTS AND CHRONIC MASTURBATORS WHO ARE SLAVES TO THIS FALSE GOD “REASON” WHICH IS A TOOL OF IMPERIALIST PATRIARCHY

    ….

    1. Habitual maybe, but not chronic.

  31. What Moynihan needs is a gibberish whisperer. Here’s one bit from his article:

    “On the following page [Brand] offers this baffling recapitulation of the Cold War’s end, when Mikhail Gorbachev “allowed a unified Germany to enter NATO, a hostile military alliance, on the condition that, ‘NATO would not expand one inch to the East,’ the United States agreed. Then they expanded right into East Germany, likely giggling as they went.” Wait, so a defeated Gorbachev “allowed” a unified Germany into NATO and then, like assholes, a unified Germany joined NATO?”

    Brand can’t explain anything clearly. Apparently, what this is all about is that the Russians are b-tthurt (possibly justifiably) over NATO expansion. When they were negotiating the release of East Germany from their despotic reign, the Soviets wanted guarantees that NATO would never ever move East. Apparently, there was some discussion during the negototiations of keeping the East half of a united Germany out of NATO, and James Baker assured Soviet negotiators that NATO wouldn’t be reaching out for Hungary or Poland, but none of that made it into any treaty.

    Four years later, when Clinton and Blair decided that NATO would go to war to stop Milosovic, Russia learned that a handshake deal with a US presidential administration is only good for that presidency.

    1. “there was some discussion during the negototiations of keeping the East half of a united Germany out of NATO”

      How exactly does 1/2 of a ‘united’ country adopt a foreign policy contrary to the other 1/2 of its ‘now-unified’ political organization, again?

      … you also fail to clarify how any agreement made bi-laterally between the Soviets and the US was in any way supposed to have the effect of preventing now-independent states like Poland or Hungary from *making their own fucking minds up for themselves*?

      Everything discussed about this particular moment in history seems to overlook the fact that the people being ‘negotiated with’ were sitting on top of a government that was about to implode.

      “In late May 1990, Gorbachev finally agreed to a unified Germany joining NATO. But why didn’t Gorbachev and Shevardnadze get the West’s commitments in writing at a time when they still held all the cards? “The Warsaw Pact still existed at the beginning of 1990,” Gorbachev says today. “Merely the notion that NATO might expand to include the countries in this alliance sounded completely absurd at the time.”

      Some leading Western politicians were under the impression that the Kremlin leader and his foreign minister were ignoring reality and, as Baker said, were “in denial” about the demise of the Soviet Union as a major power.”

      Less than a year later, the organization being negotiated with *ceased to exist*, and so did the relevance of any agreements with it. Whoops?

      1. I’m not defending Brand – I was just curious what he was talking about, so I googled it and wanted to share. (After all, I called the Russians “b-tthurt” and the Soviets “criminal”!).

        I agree with you on all your points – the NYT had a good article on this in 09.

        Now that I’m talking about it, I think it’s helpful to know if you want to understand the Russian worldview.

        For better or worse, Clinton and Blair created the “NATO membership allows us to declare neoliberal war on European nations” rule a few years after the German unification discussions, which probably confirmed a lot of Russian fears about NATO. I’m OK with confirming Russian fears if it prevents genocide, but it’s still good to know when you’re poking a bear.

        1. “Clinton and Blair created the “NATO membership allows us to declare neoliberal war on European nations” rule “

          You mean Bosnia/Kosovo etc?

          Or was there some other example of ‘the terrors of NATO European Hegemony’?

          1. Man, it sounds like I’m rubbing you the wrong way, and I apologize.

            Yes, that’s my understanding – that the Clinton/Blair rule is that you can wage war without UN approval and without an imminent threat to your own nation as long as there is an imminent humanitarian crisis and you have the backing of a relevant nearby mutual defense league.

            Again, I think the war in former Yugoslavia is a good thing, but I can see how a Russian official might see it as a nearly blank check to start attacking Russian client states.

            1. “I can see how a Russian official might see it as a nearly blank check to start attacking Russian client states.”

              for the record, yugoslavia was no longer a ‘russian client state’ when that shit went down. Russia no longer had ‘client states’ because the Soviet Union collapsed and was no longer paying the bills.

              which was my earlier point, more or less.

              its not that you rub me the wrong way dude, its that you seem to have consumed some deluded post-cold-war worldview that has zero actual perspective on what happened in the 1990s.

              Its not actually that unusual. People who were not intimately familiar with politics in the 1990s often have weird ideas about what actually was going on. Including Russians!

  32. People who inherit wealth, or make huge sums from “the arts”, don’t understand how real wealth/equity is created. It’s magic, or luck, or whatever. I don’t have a problem with people getting wealthy by creating real equity, steering resources – both physical and human – to make greater from lesser. It would seem, at some point, super wealth likely owes somewhat to cronyistic intervention by the State, but I haven’t really been able to determine where exactly that line is, and I’d err on behalf of the wealthy individual if they assert no State intervention on their part occurred. I understand, at some point, wealth stops being about the ability to acquire and becomes Power, but I’d rather have that Power in the hands of people who know how to create, or steward, greater from lesser. Of course, that Power will be bequeathed to someone who DIDN’T create the wealth, and you’re likely to have a well heeled socialist on your hands.

  33. Where is that judge from Billy Madison when you need him?

  34. Russell Brand is reportedly worth around $15 million, the kind of money his ideology says is “hoarded” when it’s all in one place or one person.

    These kinds of hypocritical feaux hippie douchenozzles are some of the most annoying, retarded asshats on the planet. Actual dirt poor hippies aren’t half as annoying as his ilk. At least with them you kind of understand why they would support an ideology based on theft and forced redistribution of other people’es resources, because they don’t have any resources to plunder and would be on the receiving end of the redistribution, but pretentious shitheads like Brand are just annoying fucktards.

    You want to redistribute wealth asshole? You first.

  35. “This attitude of churlish indifference seems like nerdish deference contrasted with the belligerent antipathy of the indigenous farm folk, who regard the hippie-dippie interlopers, the denizens of the shimmering tit temples, as one fey step away from transvestites.”

    This seems like an appropriate response.

    Sheesh, a bunch of pretentious multi-syllabic word salad passed off as intellectualism with the hope that no one figures out it’s all just gibberish. What’s worse is when I read it I imagined it in Brand’s snooty British accent.

  36. What percentage of politicians or public figures live in a manner that is consistent with their professed values? Anyone have a good guess?

    Sadly, I’d figure it’s really really small.

  37. “It’s weird how highly paid, privately educated journalists who work for the corporate media attack my book Revolution.”

    Hmmmmm. So education that isn’t financed through involuntary transfers is more suspect than an education actually made possible by extortion.

  38. Any real UK leftist (or perhaps Labour and they may not be exactly the same thing) review of Brand’s book seem to hold him as an ignorant “9-11 truther” fuck

  39. Mr. Brand is not clever enough to qualify as an idiot – maybe a few more billion years of evolution would get him up to being an amoeba.

  40. It’s like he blindly pointed at random words in a dictionary and haphazardly strung them into a sentence.

  41. Nevertheless his book, Revolution, an anti-capitalist screed, is available for sale at capitalist enterprises like Amazon…Brand chose the more traditionally capitalist route of charging good money for his book.

    You seem surprised. I seem to recall another anti-capitalist manifesto coming out recently that is also selling for a pretty penny on Amazon.

  42. I saw the video & still don’t get it. Does it have something to do with living in a park? Is there an actual location Parklife? Is it somewhere it seems to take a lifetime to find parking?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.