Banks are jumping on the chance to get other countries to pay off Ukraine's existing debt and encouraging Ukraine to take on more debt.
Rich people are making a ton of money off of the warfunding efforts.
International Banks Prey on Ukraine
Posts
Total:
9
HOW did RUSSELL BRAND GO FROM STAND-UP to PEDDLING YOUTUBE CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
With a series of alarmist videos tackling issues like COVID and the Russian-Ukrainian war, the comedian has reinvented himself as a popular online current affairs guru. But while his latest venture offers a mixed bag of healthy skepticism and poorly sourced controversy-mongering, it’s worth asking what exactly he stands to gain, writes Louis Chilton
When did Russell Brand decide comedy wasn’t enough for him? For most of his time in the public eye, the Essex-born funnyman has been better known for his off-stage antics than any particulars of his comic craft. There was his short-lived marriage to Katy Perry. His bullying of Andrew Sachs over voicemail on Jonathan Ross’s radio show. His vocal objections to voting in general elections back in 2013. Well over a decade on from all that, his personal website now describes him as an award-winning comedian, actor, author, a “passionate activist for mental health and drug rehabilitation”, and, more grandiosely, a “public thought leader”. See, he can still make you laugh.
It is in this last capacity that Brand operates his self-titled YouTube channel, publishing daily videos to 5.3 million followers and counting. These videos have prompted some to accuse Brand of peddling conspiracy theories – and it’s easy to see why. Hot-button issues such as Covid vaccines and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have countless clips devoted to them. Usually they’re framed with some sort of contrarian take or calling out hypocrisy in the mainstream media. They frequently have alarmist titles, hinting at a vague, world-altering conspiracy. A few recent examples: “WW3 – So THIS Is Why They Want Russia War”; “So They DO Run The World”; “I’ve Been Warned Not To Talk About This”. They often open with Brand addressing viewers as “awakening wonders” – “awakening” being his New Age-inflected buzzword of choice.
With his beard, long hair and loose-fitting, wide-necked shirts, it’s hard to shake the sense that there’s something cultish about Brand’s whole presentation. And yet, despite all the Matrix-like “here’s the real truth”-ing, Brand’s videos are also thoroughly beholden to his puerile sense of humour, with each new revelation incongruously seasoned with a splash of his insufferable schtick.
On Monday (14 March) a clip from one of Brand’s recent Russia-themed videos went viral on Twitter. Entitled “How Did We Miss This?”, in it Brand criticises Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, and “authoritarianism” in Canada surrounding vaccine mandates, which faced a series of costly and high-profile protests nicknamed the “freedom convoy”. Brand is careful to stipulate that he is not condoning Russia’s actions, but simply pointing out a perceived hypocrisy. Whatever your opinion on Canada’s Covid laws, it should be clear that one of these things has nothing to do with the other.
One of the more common reactions to the clip – and to Brand’s YouTube persona in general – has been to compare him to Joe Rogan, the controversial US podcaster whose handling of Covid-related misinformation led to much-publicized boycotts of Spotify earlier this year. Like Rogan, Brand made his name as a comedian. Like Rogan, he has given a platform to conspiracy theories on his channel, sometimes making claims based on unsubstantiated or fringe sources. But both men also offer their followers the same unusual appeal: an apparently sincere willingness to question what we are told. The popularity of Brand’s videos is a testament to just how disillusioned many people are with mainstream media, and just how eager they are for open, defiant skepticism.
Now, it’s true that the evils of western foreign policy are often omitted from mainstream news reporting, or else largely downplayed. But is this really because of some grand, orchestrated effort to keep the public ill-informed? More likely it’s just for brevity or relevancy’s sake, or for legal reasons, or due to vague and unspoken corporate pressures.
Brand is right when he suggests that the Russia-Ukraine situation is a whole lot more complex than most news sources make out. But unless you’re going to vast swathes of research on the political and social histories of the countries, you’re never going to get the full picture. Brand’s whataboutery offers no fuller picture of the complexities of the situation than any mainstream news report does – but does offer a lot more unverifiable speculation.
His sources have come under scrutiny before, with far-right journalists and unsubstantiated newsletters among the sources used as the basis for past video essays.
Last year’s “So...Trump was RIGHT About Clinton & Russia Collusion!!” featured some particularly egregious mistruths. This is one of the problems with his approach to broadcasting: some of the world’s most trusted sources are regarded with fierce cynicism, while other more spurious ones are taken blithely at face value.
Ultimately, Brand would probably say that he preaches a healthy distrust of prescribed authority. “Together, we can create new narratives, new stories and new understanding,” he told followers recently. But surely this same scrutiny should apply also to himself? In a world where conspiracy lurks around every corner, where every news source has a hidden motive, it begs the question: what exactly is his?
Maybe he truly wants to awaken his followers to the world’s ugly realities. Maybe he just likes the attention. Or maybe a skeptical viewer might watch one of his videos and question why he advertises his stand-up tour just seconds into the start of each clip. Hypothetically speaking, if a comedian of waning mass-market appeal were looking to drum up ticket sales and bolster their profile, there’d be worse ways to go about it than a series of topical controversy-mongering YouTube videos. But who can tell? Either way, I’m starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist myself…
Nice ad-hom screed.
Typical brainless sheep.
This thread is about what's going on in a country, not a gossip rag about a person. Please leave gossip out of adult conversations and save it for your hen meeting at the beauty salon.
I think the brainless sheep tend(s) to make threads based on other people's content and use only profile pics that others came up with.
I agree. Copy and pasted Ukraine flags are atrocious.
-->
@RationalMadman
Just keep referring to greyparrot as Parrot. Whenever there’s an opportunity to call him Parrot, call him it. Obviously he has ill-intent. There’s a reason why he blocked me.
-->
@Greyparrot
Rich people are making a ton of money off of the warfunding efforts.
So tell us something that has'nt been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.
...." And then, starting sometime in the early eighties, inequality started to
rise. The shape of the curve went from an inverted U to something more
like an N: up, down, and up. Nor was this shift a temporary aberration.
It has continued for nearly four decades.
.....The jump in inequality has
been most dramatic in the United States, where the share of income going
to the top one per cent has soared from eight per cent in the early
eighties to almost twenty per cent today. But inequality has also
increased in Britain, Australia, Canada, large parts of Europe, and even
Japan, suggesting that there is something systemic at work across the
world...."
..." What does all this mean for the future of global capitalism? Milanovic
finds little on the horizon within either system that would curb the
trend toward greater inequality, let alone reverse it. Despite the
subtitle of his new book, though, Milanovic wisely trains his attention
on the past and the present, steering clear of grand predictions.
.....As he
has pointed out, the economics profession has an abysmal track record
when it comes to seeing into the future. Attempts to make predictions
about societies are, in his view, inherently doomed, because of the
contingencies of human events. To have predicted that a decline in
inequality was going to happen in the first part of the twentieth
century, one would have had to foresee (among other things) the onset of
a global conflagration in 1914—and even as late as 1913 almost nobody
did. "....
..." There is a plethora of studies whose compelling arguments and evidence point to poverty and inequality
as major contributing factors to violent conflict and war. Where people
live under dire economic and social conditions, it is easy to offer pay
as an inducement, especially for young men, to join militaries and
fight either for the state or for non-state actors. "...
..." The
poor are part of the richest peoples’ market. And during war most
common soldiers are from the poorer classes. They are the ones who get
to be in the infantry and die usually. And after wars the very wealthy
suffer far less than regular people. In the end the guys who probably
had plenty to do with starting the war will again profit from rebuilding
the landscape and selling the people food and necessities..."
Putin{ rich }, oligarchs{ rich } and banks{ rich } all serve to gain financially ---in the long run--- from war in Ukraine.
-->
@ebuc
So tell us something that hasn't been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.
You would be surprised what people will be willing to ignore to be part of a cult.
-->
@Greyparrot
You would be surprised what people will be willing to ignore to be part of a cult.
Ignorance is bliss, at least in the short term. People generally want to fit in with societal cult-ures and the many branches of churchs at the local level is great example.
1} church religious cult-ure ---ignore some truths at all costs---,
2} military cult-ure, --- kill the enemy defend your buddies at all costs----,
3} corporate free market cult-ure, ---profit is king and those who profit most will be in kingdom of heaven----,
4} narcissist cult-ure, ---take only prisoners that support your bull-crap---,
5} other