So, someone shared this post on my page the other day:
I didn’t approve it (right away) because I’d admittedly been remiss at keeping up with Mr. Brand’s revolutionary Trews uploads the past couple’ve weeks. Thus, I wanted to double check that this was indeed from his blog before potentially sneezing possible disinformation onto social media like a virus sans veracity researching first. So I did. And these were indeed his words. So, what gives? Why – after telling everyone not to vote for so long – is Russell suddenly saying, “Alright – maybe the labor party… because they’re the lesser of two evils.”
Is the lesser of two evils, still too evil? Or does he have a good reason for what he’s saying?
I’ve seen a litany of cross comments berating Mr. Brand for changing his tune (as it came on the heels of meeting with Miliband), telling him he’s “backpedaling”, and suggesting that he’s “losing hope” in his own cause. And, I’ll be honest: as an American, none of it really concerns (or previously interested) me on British-politics level (selfish). What has interested me for a while about what Russell’s doing is his capacity to shine a spotlight on the glossed-over bits of politics that everyone else ignores and passes off as tradition. “It’s always been done this way. No sense in trying to change it.” That, I feel, applies to my nation as well. And since the media – where we get our political updates – does its best to bore me into apathy and hopelessness, there’s always a sense of distrust about just how accurate what I’m reading, watching, or hearing is. Russell’s Trews asks you to carry your cognition outside that narrow “news” cube and shine a bit of awareness on the contents. “What’s the rest of the story?”, “Who has something to gain from vomiting this misery-sentimentality-more-misery sandwich at you?” So, that’s why I watch it. I’m not as smart as Mr. B, I have to work really hard at stretching my awareness putty to cover all bases, and – as a result – I forget to think bigger sometimes. Homeboy helps me remember how. And, if nada else, it’s not a bad alternative to cycling between “Will and Grace” reruns and free porn (which is what I’d probably be doing right now instead’a writing this if I’d never met him).
And that same practice that he preaches – opening your mind – is why he’s not some hypocrite here.
“People are saying things to me like, ‘My brother’s got MS… if the Tories get in, his Independent Living fund’ll be cut; he’ll have to go into a home’… In a way, you’re right; ‘lesser of two evils’ is one way of looking at it. But in another, you can slightly slow down the degeneration and degradation of the country…”
(That means he’s heeding what others are saying to him – even when it clashes with his current mindset.)
Maybe go read his novel, “Revolution”, if you’ve got some time on your hands (that you’d otherwise spend leaving antagonistic comments for me here). I’ve still got a few chapters left myself (#ADHD #selfdiagnoser), but a lot of it is stuff that you’ll’ve heard him say in previous interviews and standup bits. His book’s material based off of ideas more experienced folk have told him. He doesn’t claim to be a leader (“Messiah Complex” was basically a two hour comedic essay of him saying what a mistake it is to erect fellow humans as idols and imbue them with absolute power). Rather, he suggests a self governing society. To take a direct quote from a horrible Vice interview he had the misfortune of agreeing to do (Charlotte should really stick to fashion week pieces): “It’s not my revolution.” And, of the change he hopes to help set in motion, you’ll also hear him say the same thing he says to fellow recovering addicts:
“We’re in this together”.
Thus, if this sudden Labor Party support does anything, it demonstrates his coherence.
It means all those quotes about collaborative change aren’t just lip (bordered by fantastic facial hair) service.
Rather, he’s making the movement interactive – as promised in his outline I’m currently using as a tea coaster.
Despite having truly thought that voting would merely encourage the system, he kept his mind open enough to peruse the proclamations made by viewers of his channel. And by considering what ordinary people have to say (about how, despite it being political involvement, at least voting for the Labor party would pry power away from those abusing it and offer a few consolatory policies), he’s keeping with what he’s said before. That this is a joint effort. I dunno what the Labor Party would or wouldn’t do or if I even agree with RB about whether it’s a good choice. That’s not what this loquacious rant’s about. All’s I’m saying’s that this change of thought’s not a change of heart . Nor is it a discrediting move on his part. It’s the antithesis. He’s listening to those without power, as promised, and providing the megaphone for them with his celebrity. That’s what his channel’s about. He processes concepts, shares comments from the common man, and then clarifies his insight about taking action. It’s a discussion – a digital boardroom – not some daily ritual of a fuhrer’s sermon. And, ya know, I get that that’s hard for some people to accept or understand in the age where we look to idols as all-knowing, flawless gods with all the answers programmed into their halos. But we’re not dealing with Jesus here. (Hard for me to believe as well – you’re not alone if you have to remind yourself of that too). And we’re not looking at some M16 wielding, cigar puffing revolutionary, either. He’s a real-life, 3-dimensional, flaws ‘n all, batteries not included human man – who just wants to employ his public persona as a podium for the powerless.
Like every trailblazer, Brand’s a novel brand of visionary.
Disagree? Opine the details in his Trews comments.
Unlike most who’ve gone before him, he’ll actually read and consider it.
I think that says enough.