My purpose here is to not dispute any of the statements that Brand makes. He is pitch perfect and dead on with his assessments. Brand voices what many of us who have been paying attention have been saying for years. For that I am grateful. However, many other 'celebrities' have said virtually the same things and been publicly tarred and feathered for it. Yet, Russell Brand has been on all of the mainstream corporate media's talk shows with all of the international recognized hosts and his celebrity only grows. Why?
It is entirely possible that Brand has caught a wave of thought whose time has come and he has tapped into the sub-conscious of the masses and glibly voices that. What we do know is that Russell Brand sells, and the corporate media will present the public with anything that sells...more cars, credit and soap etc. I ask you...what happens when Brand's message becomes passe' to an attention span shortened public? When his compelling persona and message becomes old hat? When Brand doesn't draw the attention he once did?
I submit that is when the controllers of corporate media set about to discredit Brand and what he says. The Russell Brand phenomena may be a prodigious game of ruling elite psychological ju-jitsu on the masses. Or, they could be waiting for Brand to make an unfortunate error in his personal life or in his media statements, they will seize on that like ravenous jackals; and Brand, the truth he speaks and the hopes of meaningful change that people pinned on him will be sunk.
The aforementioned possibilities bring me to my main point. Let us not seize onto people or personalities for hope. How did that work out with Obama? Let us inhabit the idea, not the person. I find that most people who resist what Brand is saying tend to use the words -globalist-, 'socialist and -statist. Those are not the principles that I question Brand about...I do believe in one world, one would call the bedrock of my philosophy 'socialist' and frankly 'statist' simply sounds like a made up hot button word used to manipulate. Is 'statistism' worse than 'corporatism'? From where I sit I see that it is the corporate lobby that runs the state. No, I wonder why all the sudden Russell Brand is allowed to be on a slash and burn campaign critical against the establishment? Like I said earlier, it may be because Brand's thoughts and ideas may be something whose time has come, we are living in a time of paradigm shift. However, this conscious paradigm shift is not personality driven by cleaving onto to hero-saviors. While I'm enthusiastic about what Brand elucidates, I am troubled by the fawning over him to the detriment of the conscious shift he speaks of. Let us inhabit the shift, not the man.
All movements for broad change in society must be wary of managed opposition. People put into the public eye that say all the right things, but whose purpose is to diffuse the energy of true change. The notable examples are the FBI's Co-intelpro program which derailed the anti-war and black consciousness movement in the 60s and 70s. No, I am not labeling Brand an agent, he's an actor and comedian. He thrives on attention and his persona is for sale. As my friend Karl says, those that are allowed to tell the truth in public (the corporate media) are children and comedians. Children and comedians give the ruling elite 'plausible deniability'. If Brand is being used to diffuse the energy of true change, he may not even be aware of it. Brand may simply be happy that he's ignited a firestorm of attention for himself and his career. It is up to us to be observant and independent thinkers. To applaud the message but dismiss the messenger. What we stand for is bigger than Russell Brand or any individual.
I felt this needed to be put into the atmosphere.
Thank you for reading