When you look at the number of viewers/ listeners to Brand, Rogan, Dore, Glennwald, Mate et al, could it be that independent journalism is winning? The "thought police" have lost, it appears. Let's savor the moment.
Russell seems to pretty consistently land on the correct side of issues, imho at least. My only gripe would be that he tends to suck all of the oxygen out of the room at times, when I'd really like the guest to be the main topic.
Kind of like what I thought Lis Smith did on Real Time last week. She was nothing more than a paid ad for the DNC, and turned every topic into a mid term campaign ad. and I wanted to hear Matt bring some sanity to the discussion.
Russell exposes the worst and basest aspects of our society (the corrupt activities of the decrepit and elitist ruling classes) in a fun and enjoyable way. Ridicule and satirize is a good way to deliver the truth which is often bad news. We can’t fix society unless we know the problems. Tons of positive energy. I learn more from Russell in a few episodes than all of mainstream media in a lifetime. I never laugh when I watch msm lies despite it being a parody. Goodbye mainstream media.
Russell is a big proponent of decentralization and transparency. I wish he would start talking about a more organized fashion of it and how to use it to regain control and stop the corruption from happening. Like this:
We have recognized some major overlap between the non-authoritarian elements of the left and right for some time now, especially in these threads. That's good, but to paraphrase Winston Wolf from Pulp Fiction, let's not go patting each other on the backs just yet. It's time to start developing an actionable common agenda.
Here's what I think many of us can agree on: The federal government has become too big and overweening. It needs to be trimmed. Federal law enforcement needs to be massively cut. The states can create some kind of structure for information sharing, coordination, and cooperation; the FBI sucks at this anyway. The centralized intelligence services should be broken up; they have very few demonstrable achievements and they're dangerous to freedom. Intelligence functions can be distributed among military intelligence agencies.
Agencies with the power to threaten freedom should be kept as localized, close to the people, and accountable as possible.
It used to annoy me when Hillary Clinton couldn’t answer a question with less than a thousand words. I like Russel, but sometimes he can’t ask a question with less than a thousand words.
Russell Brand having a clear idea about what troubles the world...(?) When celebrities are those we turn to for informed intelligent analysis of the world order, we're fucked. Wait...WHAT? Uh oh....
Occasionally, I've actually found him mildly humorous on specific topics, but wtf...Russell Brand on the world...?!? Pick a name out of a phone book, take a chance...it'd have about the same probability of hearing intelligent analysis.
The educated class really generally suck. I am ashamed that I am one of them. However, I live on the other side of the tracks where I have some calluses on my hands, and my mind still works on objectivity, pragmatism and critical thinking.
RB may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but he sees the world through his own eyes rather than in service of an agenda, and that makes him appealing.
I stopped watching cable news completely about 10 years ago and mostly about 15 years ago. What I remembered about the old days was that pundits and commentators used to have their own identities and ideas. Sometime around that 15 year ago period I noticed that everyone who came on pretty much was a shill regurgitating the party line (and the party line is usually a lot less interesting and more predictable than a person’s independent opinion), though it seems to be what keeps viewers/readers coming back. For me, why on earth would I bother to watch (or read) someone like that? I can get all the push emails full of spin I want for free direct from the pols (or for a token contribution to their activist groups). I started noticing that newspaper editors were getting the same emails I was and then pushing those memes in stories. How can you charge for something a reader or viewer can get for free almost anywhere? I suppose there is a patina of authenticity for some rubes if they read it a few days later in the NYT or FT?
Anyway, what is appealing about RB is that he is himself, not part of the machine and not flogging the same old tropes. Also he is funny! Thanks
love it. brand is sometimes challenging to listen to, not generally in conversation with people, but his rants before and after an excerpt.. YET... his mantra.. is drop the childish labels, find commonality, built unity. it's our only option. thanks Matt!
The discussions here, and in all media, ignores that all that is happening has been happening in one form or another since humanity first clubbed the other guy on the head to take his food. The issue is deeper than ANY current manifestation. Deep in our psyche there is a fallacious approach to life. Religions attempt and pretend to address this, but , like every thing societal, the religions become a tool of the madness. Still that personal, stepping away from the 'group', questioning and search can be the only rational approach to look at the insanity that engulfs every human being.
The "them" in We Can't Let Them Do this are possessed by demons.
Demons? Really? Levitating and vomiting black puke? No. Not that kind of demon. It's even worse .
I posted this last year as an effort to make sense of the world I see, and reposting here, as everything goes steadily downhill. It's not wonderfully written, but whatever. I don't have time to make it pretty. And the 2 people who read it won't care. ahhahahaha
A Brief History of Demons
We are seeing in the U.S. an apparent descent into borderline social psychosis -- where monsters are made from shadows and empirical facts cease to exist. The phenomenon -- like a virus or plague -- seems to transmit invisibly and presents through symptoms that vary within a broad pattern. Heart-rending stories -- even seen here in comments -- of family members estranged and angry in siloed realities are examples. Wikipedia defines psychosis as "an abnormal condition of the mind that results in difficulties determining what is real and what is not real." Our current predicament is due in part to news industry methods, but those can be seen two ways: 1) as a cause and 2) as a consequence of a larger phenomenon.
"Reality" is a slippery concept. The scientific revolution brought epistemological clarity to the physical world, which peaked with the grandeur of Newtonian mechanics. Quantum theory demolished certainty and put probability in its place. But probability remains measurable and physical reality remains objective through empirical experiment.
Human psychology has no such objectivity. Going back to Greek thought and proceeding to now we see a sequence of speculations. The ancient world saw man as playthings of gods -- which the Greeks called "daimons" -- who would interfere in human affairs, steer actions and results. Daimons were disembodied but quite real beings who could act for good or bad. Christianity, in its monotheistic enthusiasm, repositioned these beings as "angels" and "demons" and moved them off center stage. I recall one Roman historian (whose name I've forgotten) observed there were over 1 million gods in ancient Rome. It's far easier to keep track of one god and one devil than sort out millions! Maybe monotheism is the first triumph of managerial efficiency in human history. LOL.
Human thought in "the West" focused for centuries on systems of ethics and political theory, giving man free will to act on a fixed point between two poles -- Jesus and Satan. It was the Christian writer Doestoevsky in his 1860s novel "The Possessed" who rehabilitated the daimons of ancient Greece for our age, largely in the form of demons. My intellectual hero Albert Camus observed that "The real 19th century prophet was Dostoevsky, not Karl Marx." Camus' own novel "The Plague" and the playwright Eugene Ionnescu's "Rhinoceros" were two artistic attempts to catalog the same phenomenon.
20th century psychology pursued demons only tentatively and through three systematic methods. One -- by noting that groups seem to become possessed by an animating power independent of any single constituent -- was group psychology through French sociologist Gustav Lebon's 1895 book "The Crowd" and later in 1921 by Freud in "Group Psychology and the Analysis of Ego". I'm not aware of much beyond that, as pyschology "advanced" through behavioral theories and neurologial explorations -- although it may exist and I'm uninformed.
The second was objective mental illness, focusing on biochemical etiology; this was a clarifying and ethical achievement that has done enormous good. But the underlying mechanisms remain hidden in mystery and these conditions apply only to a small subset of humanity; they do not explain broad social phenomenon.
The third path was an atavistic return to daimonic theory, perhaps most evident in Swiss psychologist Carl Jung's archetypes, but also in the cartography of universal mythic structures seen in James Frazer's "The Golden Bough" and in the popularized treatment through Joseph Campbell best-selling books. Jung's idea of a universal mind composed of psychic forces called "archetypes" that drive human perception and action closely parallels the "forms" of Plato and is perhaps the Greek daimons renamed.
The path from Doestoevsky, through LeBon and Freud, energized by Jung's archetypes seems to me the most analytically fruitful in interpreting our current situation, explaining motivations and perceptions, and bringing the unconscious -- "demons" or "daimons" or "archetypes" or what you will -- into a clarifying consciousness. All provide a vocabulary and analytical structure that elevates and illuminates thinking far above the fruitless slogans and spitting sputtering bewildered stammering that passes for critical commentary.
The ancient Greeks placed the command "Gnothi seauton" (Know Thyself) on their temple of Apollo at Delphi. But, even so, the Athenians killed Socrates -- for talking. It's hard to take your own advice. But it's good advice. "Civilization" has made some progress since then, but progress is easy to lose.
Our media class has largely devolved into propagandists for the Democrats, completely sacrificing their integrity and, correspondingly, their credibility. I always assume all “news” outlets are lying, and hopefully most Americans remain healthfully skeptical about any/all “information” emanating from these classless, self-serving drones.
Great interaction and thoughtful perspective, and I will now go watch the whole thing on Russell’s channel!
When you look at the number of viewers/ listeners to Brand, Rogan, Dore, Glennwald, Mate et al, could it be that independent journalism is winning? The "thought police" have lost, it appears. Let's savor the moment.
Russell seems to pretty consistently land on the correct side of issues, imho at least. My only gripe would be that he tends to suck all of the oxygen out of the room at times, when I'd really like the guest to be the main topic.
Kind of like what I thought Lis Smith did on Real Time last week. She was nothing more than a paid ad for the DNC, and turned every topic into a mid term campaign ad. and I wanted to hear Matt bring some sanity to the discussion.
Russell exposes the worst and basest aspects of our society (the corrupt activities of the decrepit and elitist ruling classes) in a fun and enjoyable way. Ridicule and satirize is a good way to deliver the truth which is often bad news. We can’t fix society unless we know the problems. Tons of positive energy. I learn more from Russell in a few episodes than all of mainstream media in a lifetime. I never laugh when I watch msm lies despite it being a parody. Goodbye mainstream media.
Russell is a big proponent of decentralization and transparency. I wish he would start talking about a more organized fashion of it and how to use it to regain control and stop the corruption from happening. Like this:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/what-we-need-is-a-transparency-movement
We have recognized some major overlap between the non-authoritarian elements of the left and right for some time now, especially in these threads. That's good, but to paraphrase Winston Wolf from Pulp Fiction, let's not go patting each other on the backs just yet. It's time to start developing an actionable common agenda.
Here's what I think many of us can agree on: The federal government has become too big and overweening. It needs to be trimmed. Federal law enforcement needs to be massively cut. The states can create some kind of structure for information sharing, coordination, and cooperation; the FBI sucks at this anyway. The centralized intelligence services should be broken up; they have very few demonstrable achievements and they're dangerous to freedom. Intelligence functions can be distributed among military intelligence agencies.
Agencies with the power to threaten freedom should be kept as localized, close to the people, and accountable as possible.
It used to annoy me when Hillary Clinton couldn’t answer a question with less than a thousand words. I like Russel, but sometimes he can’t ask a question with less than a thousand words.
I love Russell Brand. He's a force of good in this world. Comics are so damn smart.
Russell Brand having a clear idea about what troubles the world...(?) When celebrities are those we turn to for informed intelligent analysis of the world order, we're fucked. Wait...WHAT? Uh oh....
Occasionally, I've actually found him mildly humorous on specific topics, but wtf...Russell Brand on the world...?!? Pick a name out of a phone book, take a chance...it'd have about the same probability of hearing intelligent analysis.
@263053-matt-taibbi You can host video on Substack now. Don't need to send audience to YouTube.
If that feature isn't enabled in your account, ask Substack to enable it. That's what I did but maybe it's on for everyone now. Idk.
The educated class really generally suck. I am ashamed that I am one of them. However, I live on the other side of the tracks where I have some calluses on my hands, and my mind still works on objectivity, pragmatism and critical thinking.
RB may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but he sees the world through his own eyes rather than in service of an agenda, and that makes him appealing.
I stopped watching cable news completely about 10 years ago and mostly about 15 years ago. What I remembered about the old days was that pundits and commentators used to have their own identities and ideas. Sometime around that 15 year ago period I noticed that everyone who came on pretty much was a shill regurgitating the party line (and the party line is usually a lot less interesting and more predictable than a person’s independent opinion), though it seems to be what keeps viewers/readers coming back. For me, why on earth would I bother to watch (or read) someone like that? I can get all the push emails full of spin I want for free direct from the pols (or for a token contribution to their activist groups). I started noticing that newspaper editors were getting the same emails I was and then pushing those memes in stories. How can you charge for something a reader or viewer can get for free almost anywhere? I suppose there is a patina of authenticity for some rubes if they read it a few days later in the NYT or FT?
Anyway, what is appealing about RB is that he is himself, not part of the machine and not flogging the same old tropes. Also he is funny! Thanks
love it. brand is sometimes challenging to listen to, not generally in conversation with people, but his rants before and after an excerpt.. YET... his mantra.. is drop the childish labels, find commonality, built unity. it's our only option. thanks Matt!
The discussions here, and in all media, ignores that all that is happening has been happening in one form or another since humanity first clubbed the other guy on the head to take his food. The issue is deeper than ANY current manifestation. Deep in our psyche there is a fallacious approach to life. Religions attempt and pretend to address this, but , like every thing societal, the religions become a tool of the madness. Still that personal, stepping away from the 'group', questioning and search can be the only rational approach to look at the insanity that engulfs every human being.
Brand has been exceptional during covid.
The "them" in We Can't Let Them Do this are possessed by demons.
Demons? Really? Levitating and vomiting black puke? No. Not that kind of demon. It's even worse .
I posted this last year as an effort to make sense of the world I see, and reposting here, as everything goes steadily downhill. It's not wonderfully written, but whatever. I don't have time to make it pretty. And the 2 people who read it won't care. ahhahahaha
A Brief History of Demons
We are seeing in the U.S. an apparent descent into borderline social psychosis -- where monsters are made from shadows and empirical facts cease to exist. The phenomenon -- like a virus or plague -- seems to transmit invisibly and presents through symptoms that vary within a broad pattern. Heart-rending stories -- even seen here in comments -- of family members estranged and angry in siloed realities are examples. Wikipedia defines psychosis as "an abnormal condition of the mind that results in difficulties determining what is real and what is not real." Our current predicament is due in part to news industry methods, but those can be seen two ways: 1) as a cause and 2) as a consequence of a larger phenomenon.
"Reality" is a slippery concept. The scientific revolution brought epistemological clarity to the physical world, which peaked with the grandeur of Newtonian mechanics. Quantum theory demolished certainty and put probability in its place. But probability remains measurable and physical reality remains objective through empirical experiment.
Human psychology has no such objectivity. Going back to Greek thought and proceeding to now we see a sequence of speculations. The ancient world saw man as playthings of gods -- which the Greeks called "daimons" -- who would interfere in human affairs, steer actions and results. Daimons were disembodied but quite real beings who could act for good or bad. Christianity, in its monotheistic enthusiasm, repositioned these beings as "angels" and "demons" and moved them off center stage. I recall one Roman historian (whose name I've forgotten) observed there were over 1 million gods in ancient Rome. It's far easier to keep track of one god and one devil than sort out millions! Maybe monotheism is the first triumph of managerial efficiency in human history. LOL.
Human thought in "the West" focused for centuries on systems of ethics and political theory, giving man free will to act on a fixed point between two poles -- Jesus and Satan. It was the Christian writer Doestoevsky in his 1860s novel "The Possessed" who rehabilitated the daimons of ancient Greece for our age, largely in the form of demons. My intellectual hero Albert Camus observed that "The real 19th century prophet was Dostoevsky, not Karl Marx." Camus' own novel "The Plague" and the playwright Eugene Ionnescu's "Rhinoceros" were two artistic attempts to catalog the same phenomenon.
20th century psychology pursued demons only tentatively and through three systematic methods. One -- by noting that groups seem to become possessed by an animating power independent of any single constituent -- was group psychology through French sociologist Gustav Lebon's 1895 book "The Crowd" and later in 1921 by Freud in "Group Psychology and the Analysis of Ego". I'm not aware of much beyond that, as pyschology "advanced" through behavioral theories and neurologial explorations -- although it may exist and I'm uninformed.
The second was objective mental illness, focusing on biochemical etiology; this was a clarifying and ethical achievement that has done enormous good. But the underlying mechanisms remain hidden in mystery and these conditions apply only to a small subset of humanity; they do not explain broad social phenomenon.
The third path was an atavistic return to daimonic theory, perhaps most evident in Swiss psychologist Carl Jung's archetypes, but also in the cartography of universal mythic structures seen in James Frazer's "The Golden Bough" and in the popularized treatment through Joseph Campbell best-selling books. Jung's idea of a universal mind composed of psychic forces called "archetypes" that drive human perception and action closely parallels the "forms" of Plato and is perhaps the Greek daimons renamed.
The path from Doestoevsky, through LeBon and Freud, energized by Jung's archetypes seems to me the most analytically fruitful in interpreting our current situation, explaining motivations and perceptions, and bringing the unconscious -- "demons" or "daimons" or "archetypes" or what you will -- into a clarifying consciousness. All provide a vocabulary and analytical structure that elevates and illuminates thinking far above the fruitless slogans and spitting sputtering bewildered stammering that passes for critical commentary.
The ancient Greeks placed the command "Gnothi seauton" (Know Thyself) on their temple of Apollo at Delphi. But, even so, the Athenians killed Socrates -- for talking. It's hard to take your own advice. But it's good advice. "Civilization" has made some progress since then, but progress is easy to lose.
Our media class has largely devolved into propagandists for the Democrats, completely sacrificing their integrity and, correspondingly, their credibility. I always assume all “news” outlets are lying, and hopefully most Americans remain healthfully skeptical about any/all “information” emanating from these classless, self-serving drones.
Great interaction and thoughtful perspective, and I will now go watch the whole thing on Russell’s channel!