Has Russell Brand Lost The Message?

Russell Brand is currently on the receiving end of a lot of flak in the UK media. This is more-or-less unprecedented. A few haters aside, Brand has been largely untouchable as a comedian, actor and, latterly political commentator since first appearing as a presenter on MTV in 2000. OK, his films, including Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) and a remake of Arthur (2011) have hardly set him up as the new De Niro, but his undeniable charisma meant that for the most part his popularity rode consistently high among mainstream audiences.

He has also been much-feted in the manosphere (including here) for his social savvy, and attendant ability with the ladies, which culminated in his brief marriage to pop star Katy Perry in 2010. Whatever your personal opinion on Brand’s flamboyant appearance – a mash up of Captain Sparrow, Keith Richards and a Victorian chimney-sweep – he certainly challenges the one-dimensional belief that alpha is the sole domain of roid-headed bulk-beasts in muscle t-shirts.

Things started to go wrong when Brand began commenting publicly on political and social inequalities as he saw them, joining demonstrations by activist groups including Occupy Wall Street, and the protestors at the G-20 London summer summit in 2009. He also wrote to The Independent newspaper to condemn Israeli assaults on Gaza in the same year. This led to a number of admittedly very well-written articles for The Guardian (the UK’s leading liberal newspaper, which has a global voice due to its highly-influential website).

In 2013, Brand was invited to edit an issue of left-leaning political magazine The New Statesman, a decision which led to this combative interview on Newsnight with heavyweight pundit Jeremy Paxman. Paxman takes umbrage at Brand’s famous refusal to vote and therefore participate in what he views as a broken system:

Here, Brand outlines the problems that he perceives in society: the planet being destroyed, the creation of a global underclass, and the exploitation of the poor by governments who care only for the interests of big business. His diagnosis, while unoriginal, is not unsound. Many ROK readers who take more of an Ayn Rand tack would still recognize his portrait of a mainstream “system” created by complicity between governments, commerce, and global banking that is antithetical to the interests of many groups and individuals.

A year later and Brand appears to have become a full-time activist with a YouTube show called The Trews (“True News with Russell Brand”), and a new book fleshing out the ideas he discussed with Paxman, Revolution. The reviews have been patchy at best, and frequently downright scathing. The problem is that while Brand articulates his bugbears well enough, he seems unable to provide a rigorous alternative.

The Atlantic says that the book is “ostensibly a manifesto for the peaceful dismantling of capitalism and the establishment of small anarco-egalitarian communities without centralized power structures.” Big business is a target, of course. How to handle the motor trade? Stop exporting cars as “other countries have their own fucking cars.” Personal debt? Simply cancel it. Corporations not paying tax? “If they don’t pay tax, we’ll reclaim their assets and give them to the people who work there to run.” While well-intentioned, Brand’s ideas are infused with a kind of hippy-dippy peace-and-love idealism, but with little sense of how they might play out in the real world.

A second Newsnight interview, this time with new incumbent Evan Davis, featured an overbearing Brand who apparently favored shouting down his opponent rather than engaging in  a more considered debate.


Brand’s evangelism has caused such amusement on social media that a rash of Tweeters recently began appending the word “PARKLIFE” to the end of some of his more flamboyant utterances, thus likening them to the convoluted monologue by actor Phil Daniels on Blur’s 1994 single of the same name. To his credit, he has taken the joke in good spirits and this week put out a parody of the track which further promotes his message:

Regrettably though, Brand is now seen by many as a figure of fun rather than the serious political figurehead he would no doubt like to become, not least because a millionaire film star railing against the evils of personal wealth is always going to have a hard time being taken seriously.

Brand and Spirituality

Brand’s forays into spirituality in the last decade can be found at the root of his transformation from comic into would-be revolutionary. He writes that “the spiritual Revolution, the Revolution we are about to realize, will be fast because the organisms are in place.” Brand, as is well-documented—not least by him—is a former drug addict who now adheres to a strict program of abstinence from all mind-altering substances to stay sober.

For those who are unaware, twelve step programs such as AA (and NA, essentially an off-shoot for problematic drug users), which are frequently the recourse for addicts who have been through rehabilitation treatment, are run along spiritual lines. The second step (after the addict has admitted powerlessness over the substance or behavior that troubles them) states that former members “came to believe that a Power greater than [themselves] could restore [them] to sanity.”

The third step says that they “made a decision to turn [their] will and [their] lives over to the care of God as [they] understood him.” The recovering addict will then “clean house” by making a list of people they have harmed and making amends to them, before continuing to pray and mediate and generally live a spiritual life in the future.


The eleventh step is key: “[We] sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood him.” For Carl Jung, alcoholism and addiction are “the spiritual thirst of our being for wholeness, expressed in medieval language: the union with God.” For Jung, a “spiritual or religious experience” is required to escape their tyranny.

Recovering addicts will frequently find themselves attracted to a variety of different religions or spiritual disciplines as they search for this closer contact with a higher power. While I have no idea whether Brand is an AA member or not, this would certainly explain his interest in Buddhism and Hare Krishna, and his increasing tendency toward “everything is everything, dude”-style pontification.

To be clear: AA, which will be eighty years old next year, is without doubt a phenomenal organization that has helped millions of people to stop drinking and to stay stopped. In spite of its liberal use of thew word “God,” the program is spiritual rather than religious, meaning that it is open to those of all faiths and denominations, as well as to atheists. Members are simply encouraged to seek out a higher power of their own understanding, which doesn’t have to be a god from one of the monotheistic religions.

For real alcoholics and addicts  (those for whom the idea of will power is a laughable irrelevance) who want to quit using and go on to live a productive life, it is almost certainly the best available form of treatment. I have personally known many people whose lives have been transformed utterly by attending meetings, getting a good sponsor and working through the twelve steps.

The problem is that Brand uses the steps as the basis for Revolution, as though the components of his own personal recovery are fit for purpose for rebuilding global society from the bottom up. Profound personal change brought about by any means can often feel so powerful that the individual it affects imagines that others will be touched similarly. But to moot individual spiritual enlightenment as a means to enabling widespread structural change in world politics and finance simply sounds naïve.

Russell Brand’s intentions appear good, but his Revolution has started a conversation he seems ill-equipped to finish.

To revolutionize your love life by meeting and attracting beautiful women, click here. 

Read More: Portrait of a Modern Career Woman 

179 thoughts on “Has Russell Brand Lost The Message?”

  1. Brand is an idiot. When it comes to politics he is similar to a 15 year old who has just discovered a bit about politics and uses long words repeatedly to try and enhance his message. He has no idea what he wants or how to get it.

  2. Please stop females from posting to Reaxxion. They’re ruining the comments sections.
    Also: Brand is an idiot – I don’t take political advice from drug addicted commie actors who use snark as an argument form. You want an actor with solid political advice? Charlton Heston. Rest in peace. He told all the Harvard grads that their grandfathers would be ashamed of them and said that political correctness is Tyranny with Manners. Props to Brand for nailin Katy Perry tho

  3. people who want to do away with capitalism, fall into the hole of socialism / communism and the nanny state government which is precisely the problem in the first place…
    the problem is not corporations manipulating the government, the problem is the government that can be manipulated….. get rid of big government and you get rid of manipulated corporate interests….
    corporations are great, without them things like the internet, google, apple etc. would not exist and no amount of government would put that right… you cannot blame big money for cosying up to government, they are just making the best of a bad job, anyone in their place would do the same….
    the problem is the unproductive uber class that put themselves in power as a career…. get rid of career politicians, remove all wages, benefits and security for politicians, then see who wants to be in government….

    1. And executives are bound to deliver maximum value to shareholders. So it really is a case of hate the game, not the player in many respects.

    2. disproportionate distributions of wealth is entirely necessary, and ray wasnt saying that it isnt. the extreme concentrations of wealth is the only reason technological/cultural/civilizational advancements are made at the rate they are. and if you protest this then i encourage you to never drink filtered water, use anything that you cant make yourself, buy food at a store, buy metal, buy manufactured goods, use cars guns or medicine, etc or youre a hypocrite.
      that being said, a corrupt big government adds an unhealthy amount of power to those already in power. big government essentially allows unfair and illegal acts by businesses to be legalized (covertly or otherwise).

      1. That’s right. Life ain’t fair, and the hard working, smart and advantaged in life will get more. But, we don’t need government force to make sure the deck is stacked. That is just immoral.
        Compete. Let the chips fall where they may.

        1. But it’s not immoral to let people starve then? It’s their own fault right? Do you honestly think that if the government stayed out of the way that there would be more money and opportunities for everyone? Businesses need checks and balances just like government. There always needs to be an mediator.

        2. It is immoral only if you are the cause of it. We make people starve as a matter of government policy all the time. Millions in the last 2 decades alone. Your tax dollars go to support that activity, and if you vote or participate in this goverment then you are actively supporting it, which is immoral.
          Yes, mediator is always neccessary, to wit:
          The preservation of natural rights of the individual.
          Anything else is a system of coercion for the benefit of somebody with the power or money to make it happen.

      2. One can protest extreme wealth concentrations without being a hypocrite. Wealth concentrations have always existed. The point is that wealth is more concentrated now than it was 40-50 years ago. There is no hypocrisy in having an issue with that because there gets to a point where it’s not healthy for a civilization and produces minimal gains, as we have seen in the last 20-30 years. I agree with you that wealth divisions are necessary for social progress to occur. I have no problem with the fact that my doctor, who is also a surgeon, makes 10 times what I make a year. His job is harder than mine and his contribution to society is greater, but that’s not really the issue here.

        1. I actually completely agree with your last statement. Wealth has been more concentrated now than it was 40-50 years ago – because of ever increasing political corruption.
          While I would say that big business is the catalyst for political corruption, I would not say that big business is to blame for this corruption. I say this because in a free market, those who do significantly better than others push those other businesses out of the market. All things being equal, the free market will favor ruthless cutthroats over moral men, and as such, the free market will always be dominated by people willing to do everything within their power to get the upper hand. There’s always exceptions to the rule, but they’re just that. Exceptions.
          Additionally, these ruthless cutthroats will always be able to corrupt the government to some degree, I don’t dispute that. But if corruption is inevitable, you need to reduce the amount of corruption possible, while keeping the system stable. Hence, the size and power of the government is the deciding factor in their corruption of legality. A larger government means there’s more to corrupt. I’m sure you agree with this. So with that explanation, I don’t blame businesses for their part in corruption – I expect it. They are a product of their environment. And big government affords them too much power. Period.

    3. I agree with what you are saying, but to be clear what people keep calling capitalism, and what we have, is not actually capitalism.
      It stops being capitalism when the geographic monopoly of force we call governemnt is used to full effect and all its overbearing glory to allow rich interests to buy countless favors in regulation, law, ect., all enforced upon us at the barrel of a gun.
      REAL capitalism is the only honest and fair way to organize economic activity (and happens NATURALLY) and is only capitalism if government stays the FUCK out and rich people do not have the ability to buy advantages from the government. If you give government ANY ability to regulate economic activity or the money system, you have started down the road to perdition.
      Government is only moral in the defense of natural rights (of the individual). Oh, and corporations cannot be an individual no matter what the hell the supreme court says.

      1. Real capitalism is a bit of a fiction though isn’t it? It’s just as idealistic as communism. There has never been ‘real capitalism’, which allows hardcore proponents to conveniently get out of every single argument(‘That’s not capitalism man!’). In reality, gung-ho capitalist types are really no better than Christians or Communists. Or feminists for that matter.
        I guess if I had to choose one theory to back it would be a theory of capitalism that provides some of the advantages you described above, but it just isn’t going to happen.

        1. Certainly in this day and age.
          True capitalism is something that happens spontainiously, lacking an established system. Everything else that follows is a game that benifits one side or the other. In it’s worse case you get what we have today…a completely corrupted system to further enrich the rich, backed up by the government with a monopoly of force.

    4. What? These lazy corporations can only stay on top with massive aid from the government in the form our countless advantages. Do you work in a large corporation? I do. The amount of waste that goes on in large corporations is mind boggling. Smaller corporations run circles around them, but it is the advantages provided by governement that gives them the upper hand, every time.

    5. It is too simple to blame government. The most wealthy and powerful will always find a way to take the lion’s share, irrespective of whether the government sanctions their behaviour or not.

    1. Who “also wrote to The Independent newspaper to condemn Israeli assaults on Gaza in the same year” (2009).

      1. If you have any opinion on Palestine/Israel then you haven’t read the thousands of years of documented history that describe the FUCKED UP situation that is that area.

        1. More importantly: If you think Palestine/Israel is an important conflict on the long list of global conflicts, then you’re willfully ignoring all the far more important (and deadly) conflicts. How many lefty faggots are out in the streets, expressing outrage about what’s going on in South Sudan? Northern Pakistan? Tibet? Syria (good lord, Syria!), etc.
          The number of deaths in Gaza is tragic… but does it stack up to the world’s real horror stories? Not at all. So why does everyone care so much about Gaza?
          Because Joos. That’s why.
          Lives are what’s important. Right now Syria is off. the. fucking. charts. In a single month, there were more casualties than the last decade of Israel/Palestinian strife. Protests? Anyone? Not a peep.
          That should tell you something about the whiny little faggot protesters.

  4. I’ve been studying personality psych on my own time for the last little while and the fact is some people are better at some things than others… everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses.
    Personally, I applaud Brand for what he has accomplished in bringing a voice to these issues, but no one can earnestly expect this guy to come up with solutions to such complicated problems.
    The average beta has the ability to work hard and stay on task… even if he is a boring unoriginal frump who is happy to sit on the couch and let other people think for him.
    But what Brand has as an individual is charm, force of character, empathy, and openness to people and new ideas. Even Troy admits it… Brand aint wrong… sure he didn’t originate these ideas… but what he has done is created a face for social concern in the mainstream.
    None of my favourite thinkers or comedians have done that… Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Bill Burr, Bad Religion, Ayn Rand, History!, the Dalai Lhama, the Manosphere, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley… they will forever be discussed almost entirely in the underground… Where they have little influence to influence the masses.
    The greatest thinkers are not the greatest doers, and vice-versa.
    Brand… almost entirely uniquely to him… brings SOME degree of Red-Pill thinking to the MSM in such a way that it can be branded (hehe) as “Sexay.” And presenting something as sexay (while non-threatening) is the only way that the MSM audience would process it at all.
    Combine a person like Brand with the mind of a true-philosopher and the discipline and detail-orientedness of a strategist and you have the combination of personas that can move whole crowds of people.

        1. I correct myself, he is a moron.
          He is not telling the truth. He is telling leftard-libtard wishfull thinking.

        2. Hm, not so much. He needs a king to follow, a man of intelligence, someone to sculpt him… he has the personality to hold attention but he needs a smart man to push him into usefulness. He’s a boy without a father: so much energy but no one telling him how to use it correctly.

        3. I haven’t read his manifesto so I can’t comment on it.
          But when I hear this guy talk, what I hear is “the elites don’t give a flying fuck about us.”
          Which is true. And he can get away with saying that.

        4. Never listened to this guy before…
          I like this kind of broad-perspective kind of thinking. Thanks for link.

  5. I find hyper rich leftists the most comical of that pack of malcontents, especially when they call for eliminating capitalism. Were not for capitalism, Russel Brand would be the town drunk that people pointed to and laughed at on the way to the pub.
    He gets women, big deal. It’s not like this is a hard thing to do. Outside of that, he has nothing to admire, he is a cipher created by and meant exclusively for the entertainment industry and its mind numbed sycophants and female acolytes.
    His ideas are old and unoriginal, he offers no “solutions”, he spouts boilerplate Marxism and hangs out with people who shit on the sidewalk while they “occupy” places they could never create on their own initiative.
    Color me unimpressed.

    1. Exactly. As clever as he is, he fails. He fails because he has no real lynchpin with which to gauge him.
      I am sure, that if he and I had this conversation, he would comically dance circles around me. But that is my problem….
      No one, not even brand, knows who he is.
      Without a standard, there is no way to tell any differences at all.
      So he strikes me as another rich hypocrite, trying to play the proverbial liberal crab bucket, keeping his betters from completely climbing out.
      His only tiff, is that he is not the one climbing out. You don’t see him actually making any real differences do you?
      I like Brand’s form of comedy. But that is where it ends. When he no longer is popular, I will not miss him nor care. Nothing personal, he is incredibly talented. But again, that is it.
      This attempt he has made to seem serious, and pose as a difference maker, has fallen flatter than his last TV show.
      I say this knowing I could not do what he does. It is not a beta male hate fest I am spewing. But an acknowledgement that he is not the ultimate dude that needs to be resembled. Though he seems to think he is.
      Good luck. Because based on the things he is saying, he appears to need a lot of it.

    2. Brand, alpha?
      Really? DT at best.
      True alphas have a natural charisma that this guy can’t even begin to emulate.
      Whatever he does, I find him as insufferable as a girl during puberty, on her period.

      1. What’s the point of being alpha if men don’t respect you? Pandering to women like a male whore is alpha? That’s the only definition? Being a male whore is something to be aspired to?
        I know plenty of guys who get lot of ass but are pieces of shit. They are not alpha. Trust me. They cannot depend on themselves. Most are emotionally stunted, overgrown children with moderate mental health issues.
        SO alpha…

        1. Well, RB has a sizable fanbase – he can sell out arenas in Europe several times over – so it seems that there are men who will follow him.
          Also, I would disagree that he is disposable and mediocre. If anything, I would say that he stands out in a very anodyne, PC culture. I can’t think of another popular entertainer of his stature who has spoken out so loudly on political matters – for that he deserves some credit, even if his analysis is weak.

        2. I would disagree that he is disposable and mediocre.

          Do you really think anyone would notice if he vanished tomorrow? I have to say, I have never been able to stand him and the fact that he is now “political” is a relief since I no longer have to tolerate his awful comedy.
          True RB sells out shows but so does Justin Bieber. I don’t think this is a good criteria for either being alpha or a leader of men. He is just an entertainer – and it is true women love an entertainer.

        3. I have attended Rush concerts. I would not, however, follow Geddy Lee into battle, or anywhere else most likely.
          Selling out seats != leader of men.

        4. Sure, but come on – You’re saying the warrior archetype is the only def. of alpha? I wouldn’t follow Rupert Murdoch into battle but I’d still say he’s alpha.
          Standing up before 20,000 people who’ve paid good cash to see you makes you a ‘leader’ of sorts, surely, and certainly not an average man.

        5. False. You brought up “men who will follow him”. I was pointing to men who sell out arenas as a counter to that assumption. I also wouldn’t follow Geddy Lee if he were instructing a class on how to queef. In other words, filling stadiums != leadership in any form except precisely the ability to fill arenas. Tiny Tim could fill a stadium (in his day) but he wasn’t a leader, he was a performer. Performers do not lead, they perform just like monkeys perform to an organ grinder’s music.

      2. Super-famous people operate according to different rules than the rest of us.
        You don’t have to be “alpha” to fuck groupies if you’re a celebrity.

      3. Being wealthy and/or famous are very effective pieces of bait to land some snatch, but it certainly isn’t a measure of alpha.
        Such a simple view would mean that if your hypothetical friend, whom doesn’t have a dominant bone in his body, and otherwise gets lead by his peers; would suddenly become alpha, because he won the Powerball and is banging groupies, while being robbed by them at the same time.

      4. But he’s almost certainly banged more girls than anyone you know.
        Remember, Heartiste says somewhere that alpha only relates, in the end, to one’s success with women. An alpha on the football field can be a beta with his wife, etc.
        Alpha is not what ‘we’ think it should be – it is what women viscerally respond too. And Brand is knee deep in visceral response, so much that his skintight jeans are soaking. Right up to the crotch, in fact.

        1. Interesting – so because CH says it, I should agree without discussion?
          No. I have an opinion of my own.
          Alpha means leader. In the wider meaning of the word. This includes, but is not restricted to women.
          If I was ever to praise Russel Brand, it would be for being a near-perfect PUA.
          What else? Let’s see… Ok, nothing much.

        1. I think ROK is giving too much importance to him, and what he represents.
          At the same time, Brand and others like him are part of the scheme “Deus Ex Machina” used to distract the masses, and he’s a product of a diseased culture – I get the impression that he himself is revolted against it, but does not want to give up the goodies bag that comes with his lifestyle. In a society corrupted to the core, no one is surprised. But in a structured, healthy society, what function would he serve?
          Some men view life in simplistic terms – by any means necessary to achieve individual fame, money and pussy. Others aim higher for loftier goals, for the benefit of mankind.
          We would do well to exercise proper judgement as to who or what we choose to follow.

      5. Surely his status enabled him to bang so many women? How do you think he would fare if he was a nobody like us?

        1. Well, as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m told he was pretty popular with them pre-fame, and I can believe it. Women like men who have the balls to stand out from the homogeneous masses.

        2. I have no doubt he was popular. He’s a tall good-looking chap with a lot of personality. But certainly now they are probably lining up at his door rather than him having to go out and get them.
          I guess my point is, we can probably all think of a guy we know who bangs a lot of chicks but is alpha neither in relationships nor with respect to other men.

      6. I tell you someone who was definitely alpha in both ways. Henry Kissinger. He was swimming in women.

    3. “Hyper rich leftists”, indeed.
      How ironic how they constantly claim that the right wing is the side headed by the “rich”.

    4. Absolutely, but I think what most of these rich leftists want is sugar pill capitalism ala Northern Europe. If you are prepared to pay a shitload more taxes, that doesn’t necessarily make you a hypocrite. What makes you a hypocrite is when you are a champagne socialist who complains about wealth inequality but is not prepared to share any of your own.
      The argument that people make in defense of rich entertainers is that they are not ‘exploiting’ anyone, they are providing distraction etc. Disregarding the fact that many entertainers charge ridiculous prices for shows etc, what do they with their money when they invest it? If you have millions of dollars invested in homes, for example, that’s several homes that you have taken off the market that people less wealthy than you can no longer buy or afford(land and housing is one area where the problem of scarcity will never be fully resolved).
      What i’m against is this idea of holding people to impossible standards. When you do that, you are not looking for consistency, you are erecting a strawman. If a rich person complains about wealth inequality, they are a hypocrite. If they give away all of their money, they are viewed as fools. This seems like an unreasonable position to me.

      1. Unsurprising. The entire concept of relying on a higher power to overcome addiction is simply a tacit acknowledgment that the addicted individual is not himself up to the task. I’m not an alcoholic, but I did kick a 15 year cigarette habit several years ago largely by acknowledging that the character failure was mine and mine alone but believing that because the fault was solely mine the solution therefore lay entirely within my own power. Appeals to a higher power completely gut the strength of will that all of us potentially possess.

        1. Good job. That’s a similar approach used by Rational Recovery, a non-theistic and non-cult like approach to alcohol cessation.

  6. People given millions of dollars to pretend they are other people on camera bitching about capitalism.
    Why do we keep thinking just because someone can pretend they are another person on camera and recite lines written by a professional screenwriter their own personal thoughts are going to be extraordinary and deserve extra attention?

  7. The guy is a joke, both as a wealthy “anti capitalist” walking contradiction in terms, and as yet another leftie whiner spouting bullshit about changing the way the entire WORLD works and upon which it was built, and somehow expecting that to change in a workable manner.

  8. My issue with comedians attempting to influence politics is that they can always turtleshell the moment things become unpleasantly complicated for them. I see this same thing with Colbert and Stewart. “I’m a comedian, the politicians are the ones paid to figure this out. I’m paid to ridicule it.” Valid criticism is warranted, but if it doesn’t provide alternatives, it’s not worth listening to.

    1. Well said. I tend to put Russell Brand in roughly the same box as “South Park”: endless criticism without anything better to add. Brand seems a little more genuine about trolling for views than Parker and Stone are, but at the end of the day the capitalist system he rages so hard against is the same system that sells his books, distributes his videos, funds his flights around the world, and allowed him to stick his dick in Katy Perry.

      1. Related to what GhostofJefferson posted, I have no issue with these millionaire SJWs complaining about all the inequality, as long as they are giving away the majority of their wealth. Guess what? Almost none of them are and that makes them hypocrites in my book.

    2. In the interview posted above with BBC Newsnight Brand completely freaks out when the interviewer brings up a chart to make his point.
      Brand loses credibility there. It is pretty obvious he was intimidated by real data. Probably didn’t want to look foolish by revealing that he doesn’t know how to read an x/y plot.
      And I disagree with your point that making criticism is pointless without immediately providing a solution. Observation for the sake of observation is not useless.

      1. Observation in and of itself is of little use to people. Anyone can provide criticisms. If viable alternatives aren’t delivered the observation-based criticism is for not. I’m also curious how you mean this as I always find your posts to be well reasoned if providing a counterpoint.

        1. My reasoning is that pointing out a problem is the necessary first step in finding a solution.
          How many RoK articles are about the folly of women and western decline? The authors don’t always bring up an exact solution, but the commentators bring their ideas to the table and we start to make progress. In the big scheme of the Manosphere, we’ve got MGTOWs, PUAs, internet-alpha dweebs, MRAs, and hordes of video-game nerds, who all bring their different points of view and ideas to the table. No hardline solution was ever brought up about the Yes Means Yes shit going on California even though that is a big deal for example. But I’m glad I know about it…
          And Brand DOES try to bring a solution… its just that his solution is wrong… he’s all heart and no brains. But you know what? Monsanto and their fascist control over the food industry IS fucked up… they could potentially fill our food with poisons and whats the manly RoK response supposed to be? “Capitalism is the solution to eveything! Its cool if I have to eat garbage for the rest of my life because some psychopath capitalist rolled the dice and landed on Free Parking! Go him! Fuck us up the ass and give me cancer you sexy talented capitalist you!”
          I don’t have the answer for what is the best political ideology… I’m just poking fun…
          What I’m saying is, Brand IS trying… he IS talented at being a voice… and I get the impression that though he IS a buffoon, he actually has some heart.
          Where I agree with you and Marcus’ is that critique on its own IS useless when paired with an attitude of apathy. But what distinguishes Brand from other forms of media such as South Park (which basically has the message of “humanity is fundamentally fucked so don’t bother trying”), is that he is vocally and outwardly saying “Hey.. maybe we CAN do something different. Hey… maybe we SHOULD pay attention to this and give a shit. Hey you… sitting on your ass acting all self-important, hey maybe YOU CAN contribute to a solution.”
          Saying that observing problems is pointless, is like saying your body should not have pain receptors.
          The animal without pain receptors is going to accidentally kill itself at some point.

        2. It’s an incomplete process. There have been common consensus solutions to western women. As far as SJW legislation, the solution is to not have it exist. What is the change that he is aiming for? Revolting against the system without a substitute that can be implemented isn’t reasonable. And divorcing lobbying from politics would be possible if more voters voted against corporate interests. It will never happen because the average voter is too lazy to do so but it is possible. I don’t think South Park is as nihilistic as some believe. And an animal that can’t distinguish the severity between one pain to another is equally endangered.

        3. I think we might have to agree to disagree.
          I think characters like Brand have their role. If he headed a revolution I would not follow him… no one would…
          But people like him bring attention to corruption and injustice. Which I think is a valuable service. We’re doing the same thing at RoK, we just have a different agenda and point of view.
          The SJW legislation should not exist, it is ridiculous, and we have articulated why. Hypothetically, if enough people read the RoK posts and decided to vote against this law, our discussion will have made an actual difference.
          Similarly, if enough people hear what Brand is saying about companies like Monsanto etc., maybe they’ll think twice about giving those corporate entities their support. And maybe they’ll start thinking about actionable solutions.

        4. I think Red Pill doctrine goes further into the articulation of why the current methods are flawed that you touched on. I also don’t think criticism without presenting new concepts is well received in the Manosphere community either.

        5. There is a difference between complaining and pointing out that there is a problem.
          I think the Manosphere has a problem with sitting around and whining about shit…

        6. I’m not going to deny there aren’t some that simply want to complain for the sake of bitching. Every group has that. Though I believe the healthy majority here do find the lack of logic in that practice. Some examples I can think of off the top of my head would be disparaging the women who identified with the #idontneedfeminsim. The argument that all women (western and non-western) are the same, as if environment has zero influence on characteristics. The same individuals that disparage feminist legislation and then say voting is a waste of time. I know there is a percentage of guys on here actually want a collapse just to watch the feminists fail. As if it will be a rapture-like event where all the problems will be washed away. Of course, this also means new problems will be realized. Ones which might comparatively make feminism seem inconsequential.

        7. I think there is a fantasy we all have sometimes of some kind of collapse where us and our close buddies will form super gangs and beat up everyone and fuck all the bitches…
          In reality economic collapse would not be so pretty… And most likely the government would corral a lot of people with guns.
          In comparison to desperate hunger and thirst, feminist bitches aint shit…
          I think one of the best things that RoK is doing for us is giving us the ability to form a new philosophy. Also, its a good reminder that we’re not insane… When Russia instituted no-fault divorce and ended up in social and economic ruin, a lot of the men just killed themselves… Their identities were completely tied up with their ability to provide for women. They let women define them as men. I think having a deeper understanding allows us to put things in perspective and weather the storm…

        8. A “collapse” is way over-romanticized by many. The reality is almost no Westerners have seen extreme levels of deprivation and wouldn’t benefit from it, despite how much some like to pride themselves on the notion otherwise. It’s disturbing how so many are seemingly more motivated to have major societal upheaval than realigning our current society with a more sustainable direction. The whole “cutting off the nose to spite the face” mentality. The idea that a collapse would be a panacea is also flawed. There is zero guarantee that whatever develops out of the ashes would be better and it could perhaps be far worse. In fact, if I had to guess, I would predict the elites to gain even more of an upper-hand on the populace if there were a true collapse.

    3. You don’t really expect an entertainer to be brave, do you?
      Criticism never requires a solution. I appreciate any comedian that helps people understand to what level the politicians and famous are royal ass-hats. I definately don’t want to hear their idea of the solution though. They are comedians for a reason.
      “All the worlds a stage, and all the men mearly players, they have their entrances and their exits, and one man in his time plays many parts.”
      A person doesn’t need to do everything. Just to do one thing well on the world stage is quite an accomplishment.

      1. I’m fine with them offering criticisms as long as they are tempering their opinions with the acknowledgement that rarely are optimal solutions readily available. And the positions they are criticizing might very well be the best possible solutions.

  9. A pretty nasty fall from grace, or prestige I guess. It used to simply be Peter Hitchens who took Brand to task. And P. Hitch is not a sexy political activist by any means so that was easy to weather.
    But when even the Guardian gives a poor review of a book like Brand’s, then something has clearly gone wrong.

  10. We’ve been down the whole ”lets overthrow the existing structure because we don’t like it, we’ll sort out minor details like what we’re going to replace it with later” road before, do we really want to have another Reign of Terror? How many people need to die horribly before we learn our lesson?

    1. “How many people need to die horribly before we learn our lesson?”
      My guess would be pretty much all of them.

  11. I think we need to colonize the solar system in order to succeed as a species, let capitalism throw us throughout the galaxy… it worked to conquer our planet, why not others? Obviously I don’t expect this to be done by tomorrow, but with the move to allow for entertainment through space travel by Virgin I think a ball could be rolling towards a new war. A war based on gathering materials in space, colonization, and potentially new enemies to use our powerful military instincts against. I think capitalism is here to stay… it just needs a greater mission to keep pushing our species further.

    1. I think you are absolutely right with the idea of capitalism being a boundless and useful economic system for human expansion. You present a number of interesting ideas to ponder. I think my one concern would be that most humans are simply too primitive and inwardly motivated to succeed in such a system. There would need to be a mechanism to properly motivate and employ them and so far I don’t see capitalism being that vehicle for space exploration. Hopefully I am the one being short-sighted though and space exploration is in fact the new frontier we compete in as a species.

      1. Interesting. I`ve always leaned anarcho-capitalist myself as I feel that government exists to serve the monied elite and keep societies from taking on more beneficial forms, whatever those may be. Space could be a great frontier for abandoning the nation state entirely.

        1. Not sure if that was always the way it was as the Founding Fathers seemed to anticipate that developing. Seems to be getting more and more that way now though.

  12. he certainly challenges the one-dimensional belief that alpha is the sole domain of roid-headed bulk-beasts in muscle t-shirts.

    Are you serious? He is hipster, leftard-libtard fag.

      1. Is that really the only measure of a great man? He might have banged more girls than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus, Charlemagne, Justinian, Napoleon, Otto von Bismarck, but does that make him a greater man or more alpha somehow? Having the ability to bang chicks is important, but your actual notch count is irrelevant.

  13. I especially like British blokes like Russel Brand and John Oliver lecturing Americans about their racism. Would like also to see them buy a house in one of our vibrant neighborhoods and live there for at least 5 years.

    1. Considering the race issues developing in Britain I would have to say, “glass houses.”
      They may just find that its easy to be antiracist when not living near certain people.
      Which is what is really funny about leftists, they will go on and on about how the poor working class are so special, and as is the case in Britain, until the working class resent living near the left’s multicultural agenda. Then they’re poor, uneducated hicks.

      1. I grew up on a multicultural council estate, two of my best mates are non-white, that’s a personal, not racial issue, generally try to do my best regarding judging people, but when you’re trying bloody hard to just get on whilst surrounded by the unemployed dregs from every end on the commonwealth breeding like rabbits, spitting, robbing and dumping crap everywhere and making the home-grown scumbags look like decent folk, it makes you wonder..

        1. I agree. I never disparage individuals. However it is folly to dismiss demographics and statistics altogether.

  14. Brand is not just an entire bag of dicks but the box that the bag was shipped in as well. Socialist a-hole.

  15. Interesting that Brand expresses concern about Nigel Farage becoming the only “alternative” in the current globalist climate. Of course he then has to do a crude parody of Farage likening him to Hitler.

  16. Right after I got done reading this article, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy came on, and I swear, there’s a character on there exactly like Russel Brand; the President of the Galaxy. They’re both charismatic, narcissistic, and dumb with the same exact style. Brand should play him if they do a remake. He was born for that role.

    1. Damn you, Corey Graham. I was about to say the exact same thing. When the rumours began about Brand’s possible candidacy for Mayor of London I immediately thought of Zaphod Beeblebrox.

  17. It is interesting how both the hard edges of Left and Right are anti government. In fact in some ways they will probably work together in the future to bring down the system. Then they will probably just kill each other.

  18. Russel Brand is one of those populist socialists who wears $700 shoes. Sorry but no. Go to Africa for five years and work to make the world a better place. Don’t hang out in Chelsea and work hard to cultivate your Che/Jesus image. It only works on teenagers anyway.

  19. “Change in the world is often slow, unglamorous and painful . . .”
    And when it is fast it is often even more unglamorous, painful and rather bloody.

  20. Here’s the thing though, if the Emperor is naked, stating the obvious is not dependent on an ability to say what being appropriately clothed entails. That is, speaking up to say something is broke doesn’t mean he MUST offer an alternative. Some of his ideas ARE crackpot, but at least he’s speaking up.

  21. Brant is doing a service by bringing to light to others a truly f’d up situation.
    Does he know entirely what he is saying, or a good idea of what the solution is? Hell no. But the people that do would have a hard time getting your average Joe to listen, get on BBC, and shove that propagand mouthpiece his shit right back to him.
    Can’t you guys simply appreciate what he does do, instead of critizing all of the things that he cannot?
    For fuck sake, can you get on the BBC and get people to care about what you have to say, put that host in his place and also have the holy grail solution in 60 seconds or less? Hahaha. Didn’t think so.

  22. Twelve step programs such as the AA cult have a success rate below the level of spontaneous remission. The baseless bullshit they preach about substance being a “disease” has been catastrophic for men as it excuses what is rooted in weakness of character.

    1. AA is also rooted in fatalistic thinking: I’ve watched several friends “in recovery” fuck up, have one beer, and then conclude they’ve “fallen off the wagon” and go on a insane drug binge. AA doesn’t work because it doesn’t promote a healthy ability to manage your relationship with alcohol. Total abstinence is unworkable.

        1. But real alcoholics will binge when they attempt ‘moderate’ drinking , too.
          Abstinence works fine as a lifestyle choice for those who want it, with AA or not.

        2. I think there’s a definite body of people that would be better served by a “moderation” model then an “all or nothing” model.
          I don’t have any evidence for a moderation model…but then you don’t have any evidence for the AA model either…as they wont release data regarding their treatment.

        3. Fair point – my ‘evidence’ is only anecdotal. But it does seem to help a lot of people — which is why most expensive rehabs end up sending their patients there after treatment.
          The problem is that this is a difficult area to measure effectively – the ‘AA only works in 10% of cases’ figure that’s often bandied about is based on conjecture. To get a really robust figure you’d need to survey a good sample size of AA members against non-AA abstainers for life — after all, people can be sober for twenty years and then drink again and ruin their lives. That kind of research wouldn’t be impossible but it would certainly be a large-scale, complex project.

    2. Untrue. You can’t say a terminal alcoholic has a weak character. He has a condition (I won’t use the word ‘illness’ as it annoyes people in this context’) that means that he is unable to stop drinking regardless of the consequences.
      Do you really think a man with suffering liver failure and certain death wouldn’t stop if he was able to?
      The ‘baseless bullshit’ you speak of pertains to people’s inability to understand this simple nuance — that lack of what you call ‘will-power’ (itself a loaded term) is the condition we call ‘alcoholism’.

  23. The AA aspect is interesting.
    I remember, comedians Doug Stanhope (an unrepentant drunk and drug-user) and Jim Norton (long-time sober former addict) had a long argument about the role of religion in AA.
    Stanhope outright disregarded the system, claiming it pushed God onto people who have real world problems to deal with. Norton, who is a big advocate of rehab programs such as AA, disagreed.
    Norton keep his calm, while Stanhope gets increasingly cunty about it.
    It’s worth a listen, if rather repetitive: http://youtu.be/__KEPN7_K50

        1. The very nature of organisations means that you can often draw comparisons with cults.
          Even if you argue AA looks like a cult, it’s a benign one – you don’t have to give money (apart from a dollar in the pot for the meeting room, and you don’t even have to do that), you can leave any time you want, you don’t have to follow the steps or get a sponsor or anything. You can even slag everyone off in meetings. Plus it helps a hell of a lot of people.

  24. I’m pretty sure he was raised by a single mum as an only child and never knew his dad. I find him very feminine-looking and acting, almost gay.

  25. @disqus_r2yJAYF8Zy:disqus
    I agree with you on the “Che” reference. Boy from well-to-do social strata rails against eeeevvvvilll corp’s while simultaneously espousing some nebulous, communal society where businesses and capital enterprise are somehow absorbed by the masses through benign and benevolent means. Sadly, as Che exemplified, realizing this “dream state” requires a lot of messy violence.
    Che liked it. I doubt Brand has the spine, stomach, or vision to see his proposals through to their necessary ends.
    He’s just another celebrity spouting nonsensical pablum to sound “down with the people”.
    Oh, and he’s an effette beta-boy, IMO.

  26. Telling people you think Russell Brand is a pain in the arse is a bit like saying you like kicking nuns over here.

  27. He wanked a man off in a toilet for a tv series when off his face on heroin.
    I think that says it all about brand.

  28. “left-leaning political magazine The New Statesman”?
    Try ‘leaning so far left they’ve fallen over the bannister’.

  29. I remember a good old comment that the blue collar intellectual Eric Hoffer made about how people who want rapid change in society, are often going to be attracted to the most mystical and irrational of beliefs, regardless of how much exposure they have to the workings of science and technology. Such kind of people create the market for cult leaders and shamans.
    Change in the world is often slow, unglamorous and painful, just like most politics is supposed to be. People who want utopia, want to reduce human beings to robots and are driven by a hatred of human nature. It seems that for every decade that socialism or communism doesn’t rob the hearts and minds of the world, the more these Marxists tend to grow to hate the world, reality and existence. Rather than blame their ideas as being intolerable to human nature, they blame human nature for being corrupt, since their ideals haven’t be realized.

  30. In a recent interview, Brand stressed the need for standard SJW tripe like Chomsky and Naomi Klein to be pushed into the mainstream to “change the conversation”. The aforementioned are about as lamestream leftard as you can get, you can hear conversations peppered with Chomskyian shibboleths in lecture halls and anarchist-filled dive bars all over the West.
    If Brand wanted to be truly revolutionary and edgy, he’d commission a translation of Plevris’ “Antidimokratis”.

  31. He’s one of the best ever at gaming women, but his politics are a boring, unoriginal, joke. Another leftist, progressive type, big deal. There’s nothing revolutionary and edgy about that. Now if he was out there championing red-pill, manosphere ideas, then that’s saying something. Progressive/socialists/feminists are the most boring assholes on earth.
    And stop saying this type of person is “well-intentioned”. Its annoying. You concede too much overall.

  32. The problem with so many of these leftist types in the Anglosphere is that they are trying to import ideas that work in more collectivist cultures that wouldn’t work nearly as well out there like co-ops, for example, in addition to elaborate wealth redistribution schemes that would prove disastrous in a country like America with over 300 million people.

    1. I agree that the size and diversity of our country, while an advantage sometimes, can also be disadvantageous. And the left, under no circumstances, is wiling to make that admission.

  33. The manosphere have an aversion for everything left cuz feminism took it from them in the west, but real left is as manly as it gets, a real left governant never show his women in public, they are not allowed to form groups, they are only meant to raise children, etc etc.

  34. Isn’t Brand dating a Rothschild heiress?
    Perhaps his heart is in the right place, or perhaps he’s controlled opposition. Regardless, he critical of Israel and openly disagreed with the 9/11 official narrative. Therefore, his career will most likely go the way of Sheen and Kate Williams.

  35. Hate him or love him; He’s a mind, with a view point and clear evidence as to what’s wrong with todays world. Whether or not it’s socialism or capitalism, something needs to change and if you wait for the perfect time for a spark, you’ll be waiting forever.

  36. The validity in Brand’s argument is that wealth inequality is now out of control. The richest 1% own half the planet’s wealth for example. Someone needs to address this. The concept of intergenerational inequity – not sure if my kids will even be able to afford university and buy a house. Look at the outrageous wages of CEO’s many hundreds of times higher than workers. It is getting out of control…

  37. I think it’s VERY worrying and disturbing that any one thought Brand had a “message” to begin with.

  38. I have never really “gotten” his sense of humor. Although it can be funny at times, I just don’t get some of the jokes and humor. I can say that I get most British humor and even some Russian humor, his continues to elude me at times. Like the ravings of a lunatic or a drug addict, sometimes they are the only ones who get their message.
    But what is his message again? It seems poorly constructed and executed. I think he had a message at one point, but then ran out of the ideas and points about it, and above all it’s conclusion. An idea and message must have a conclusion or resolve. And I don’t think he has thought it that far ahead.
    However, I did enjoy this one morning, of his roasting of the morning news pundits on MSNBC:

  39. Brand is a typical Lefty: diagnostics with no solution. Also, note the totalitarian which lurks not so far below the surface — another Leftist tendency.
    Look: anyone can see a problem. The skill lies in finding a workable solution which doesn’t bankrupt, financially or morally, or else lead to oppression. For all its faults, capitalism does a better job of this than socialism, because socialism can only exist with an enemy (real or created), whereas capitalism applies market-based solutions to specific issues without having to satisfy dogma/dialectic..
    All Brand can do is offer superficial nostrums, which is unsurprising, because he’s mistaken a quick wit for actual knowledge. In a world of intelligent people, his books wouldn’t get a second glance; but sadly, today’s society is as superficial as he is — hence his appeal.

    1. He actually did research and interviewed a lot of people with simple solutions. Stuff to do at home every person as an individual and even communities.

      1. And how does one successfully run one’s own business, or support local business, if the entire system which makes those things possible, free markets, are destroyed as he also recommends?

  40. Most people are assuming they know whats the guy is speaking about, but his book is actually good and provide solutions to stuff, he is not about voting for obama and left stuff, he is about maning up and becoming an individual, most people nowdays behave like childrens who want goverments and others make decitions for them.

  41. Not to hate on the man, but he’s one of the reasons why I pay very little attention to controversial celebrities, like him. Sure, he’s good at pointing to the “elephant in the room”, however, his solution what a beautiful country, like Venezuela, has adopted and it’s been utterly destroyed. It’s easy to be seduced by guys like him, because he has that care-free, “I don’t give a f*ck” attitude”. However, this is also why your “Jedi mind-tricks” only work on the weak minded. It would be impossible to fool the more knowledgeable and experienced non-droid individuals who know of the force.

  42. How is it possible for someone to go from benefit frauding to becoming a self made millionaire who dated a billionaire heiress, to call for revolution yet have no solutions, no ideas? He said in the New Statesmen that we shouldn’t vote, but he cannot come up with any political ideas. I was born into a poverty stricken background and I can come up with multiple ideas to solve poverty.
    1. Stop building new schools and housing and doing mass immigration, causing overpopulation when there aren’t enough jobs for everyone. Back in the 90s, you could get a job in a week guaranteed, mostly a day, not any more you can’t with a degree.
    2. Give political parties that have 100 elected members some money, to help them compete with the larger parties that have millions.

  43. Comment on Brand by Jonathan Ross- on how easy it is to espouse these views, yet he has naught to lose. The Master in the big house, telling the slaves to revolt. They will be homeless, he won’t.
    He could have taken, John Ralston Saul’s ” The Doubter’s Companion- a guide to aggressive common sense, as a good handbook.
    I knew NOTHING of economics before reading ( and frankly, had no interest ), but after- and its hilarious as well- I had a basic idea of exactly what went wrong, was going wrong and why. And why it WILL always go wrong, using the system in place.
    “The Wreck of Western Culture ” ( by a prof of Sociology at LaTrobe, Melbourne Uni ) is a good one to add to it. You get a good idea how we got to this state, then you can see why its worked.

  44. Having a personal interest in the UK, I would say the UK is in such a dire state, that even Brand serves as at least a media marker, in telling that the situation is royally stuffed. Thats how bad it is.
    And Im fully up to date on the political situation in the UK.
    Correct me if I am wrong, this is helpful.( Wrong thinking won’t get me anywhere. In fact, might help me promote rubbish. This is why Im asking.)

Comments are closed.