Oh No He Didn't!!!!!!

The headline read "Russell Brand May Have Started A Revolution". Hogmuffins.




The piece regarded Brand being interviewed by BBC's Jeremy Paxman (known for his "forthright and abrasive interviewing style") about being the guest editor for The New Statesman's recent revolution-themed issue.

Paxman asked, and rightly so, what qualifies Brand for this. The interview just goes awry from there. It ends with Brand being dramatically passionate about the state of the world.

OK...so he's lucid enough to understand, like most of the rest of the world, that things need to change. He's vocal about what...but not about how. He rants about social injustice, wealth disparity, etc...but makes no statements regarding how to go about solving the problems.

A friend sent me the article this morning and this was my reply (for the most part):

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." So, Russell Brand gets excited and spouts his own "emotional porn" about the elephant in the room and I'm supposed to get excited? Hardly. When/if he actually does something about it, rather than talking about it, let me know. In the meantime, he's just another rich guy looking for a tax loophole. The fact that he refuses to vote shows that he really doesn't give a shit. Sure, I understand his reasons not to...but he forgets that while he's busy NOT voting, there are lots of people out there who are. It's his brand of apathy that has helped create the mess we're in. I hear lots of excuses but no IDEAS. No plans. Blah blah blah. But, because he gets excited, which is supposed to come across as passionate, I'm supposed to believe he has started a revolution? If that was the case, I started a revolution nearly 30 years ago. And I vote! Only difference? He has a news camera in his face and I don't.

No. Russell Brand has not started a revolution. What he has done is add a few seconds to his 15 minutes of fame, which I wish would end soon. He has merely pointed out the obvious...that which any human being can see...provided they open their eyes and look at the world.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines "revolution" as: the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one
: a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.

Nope. Mr. Brand has done none of the above nor, I believe, does he think he has. This is just more relatively useless social irritation by the media...the media bought and paid for by those that Brand tirades against.

Think for a moment who Russell Brand is. He's a celebrity. An actor, talk show host and (alleged) comedian. He is also reportedly worth $15million

.While not impossible for a rich person to be a revolutionary, it is unlikely. I often remind myself (and others) that when posed with a seemingly unlikely or confusing situation, ask WHO it benefits.
Brand's statements benefit him. It gives him another notch of notoriety on his belt of fame. His seemingly passionate display broadened no horizons. He merely added "Cap'n Obvious" to the list of characters he's played.

Yes. This world needs revolution. The corporations are happily creating a 21st century US vs. THEM...and money equals power. We've all become slaves to the corporate giants. There are ways to solve these problems...yet no one dares mention them in serious company. The source of power is money. Take that away and you have effectively crippled the global 1%. But as long as they throw nickels and dimes to the poor while lining the pockets of corrupt politicians, it will never happen.
We're all to blame. That's the one thing that Russell Brand DIDN'T mention.