Russel Brand's The Trews


#1

Have you all heard of Russell Brand’s Show The Trews? If you have, than great. what if the UKMP was featured in an episode of The Trews? His you tube Channel has a bunch of Subscriber’s and his political ideology is more closely aligned with Meritocracy than the ruling parties of the Uk.

If someone perhaps higher up in the party were able to have a correspondence with him, I think it could be a really good thing. Getting Russel Brand’s support
would in my opinion create a bigger platform for UKMP.


#2

Steven Curnow already tried this. Ultimately to no avail. For more information on the attempt, send him a message. https://www.facebook.com/steven.curnow.9?fref=ts


#3

I’ve tried to raise awareness of meritocracy via the trews. Russell has actually denounced it in one of his episodes, saying he didn’t believe it was the way forward and that it just meant “people get what they deserve”, obviously showing how little he knows about it! :stuck_out_tongue:


#4

Well that sucks. I guess he didn’t fully look into it. I wonder how this Meritocracy movement is going to play out. I don’t think America is ready for it yet. Europe is more ripe in my view. But I think we should make
#peoplebeforeprofit viral, and even make bumper stickers for it. Many people will resonate with that message, People before profit. So I think a bumper sticker with that and than the link to Meritocracy now would be a great strategy. For this kind of thing to reach mass awareness, a lot of money should go into a campaign like this. I wonder about those who started the Meritocracy party. Do the have the money to pull something like that off? I think we need to borrow from the playbooks of the Republican and Democrat political machine. They’re tactics work. There may be other ways that are less costly of getting out the message though.


#5

“People before profit” will really take off the next time there’s a recession. Australia’s got one scheduled for later this year.


#6

Do they have a recession scheduled? What do they have scheduled?


#7

Scheduled was a bit tongue-in-cheek of me; a recession has been ‘forecast’ by economists for Australia in the 2015 fiscal year.


#8

I’ve tried sending Russell Brand a letter straight to his agent, it was a private and confidential letter so I bet it reached him (nobody else would of opened it), there was no reply.

Russell in my opinion is too left wing for us, he’s not open to new ideas and I wouldn’t be surprised if he had his own agenda. I think this guy is a bit of a waste of time. He’s been in this revolution business for a while now, yet he has not said a word about meritocracy, he has not said anything new and even when Jeremy Paxman asked him what new idea he had, he said “Socialistic egalitarianism”.


#9

This is what I sent him.
John Noel Letter.odt (19.0 KB)


#10

Russel recently did an episode where he mentioned this event - http://occupylondon.org.uk/events/occupy-rupert-murdoch-week-23rd-29th/

Wondering if there would be any meritocrats that could attend at some point and hand out some flyers? I would but I’ve got too many other commitments this week unfortunately.


#11

Exploding the myth of Russell Brand ‘man of the people’ …

Apparently he’s split from Jemima Khan/Goldsmith now, but his association [about a year long] is enough to make me think twice about him, as I always did.

Here’s all about her - her power elite credentials are of course ‘impeccable’ -

JemimaKhan-Goldsmith


#12

Related to Sean’s post, but written to the thread at large

I’ve been kicking ideas like this around for a while now, and it finally seems to have come together. If anybody likes the concept, and has ideas for how to improve it, make it more specific, make it more practical, and/or possible - don’t be shy!

Firstly, it’s necessary to lay out the general psychological framework, followed by more concrete explanations…

This correlation of celebrity social activist(Brand), combined with the dynastic inheritance type activism(Jemima) gives me some ideas. We know that other-directed people worship celebrity. One of the ways in which celebrities attempt to increase their status is by creating an image of themselves as being involved with activism, or philanthropy. With mass-media, the wealthy dynastic elites, are more and more concerned with how they look to the public, and many become celebrities themselves. Mass society is highly responsive to their output and opinions on social issues.

Celebrity is the art of the persona, and how one appears, and not necessarily linked with the truth, and perhaps is quite often as far away from it as possible. Celebrity-driven narcissism, and elite posturing can be linked to the truth, and in fact, they have now - through their own devising - set the precedent…

One such precedent is “The Giving Pledge”: http://givingpledge.org/

Here, the elites ‘pledge’ whatever portions of their wealth that they decide on, and to organizations of their own choosing. In the USA, these donations can often be written off (in large part) in their taxes. Even worse, is that the money can be donated to their own family foundations. Lastly, it also enables the elites to be choosing in what ways money is being allocated and to where. They bypass the state, retain, and are perhaps even consolidating their power through such measures. The “Giving Pledge” is also not a legal document. Whatever positives that the elites’ philanthropy might have, these elements must be kept in mind.

On the positive side, the Giving Pledge precedent can be used to create an authentic ‘pledging’ fund targeting celebrities, and the super-rich as a moral imperative, which is how they frame it currently. Their website is so bloody simple, that surely an alternative can and should be created. The main difference in the alternative, would be the following:

  • Each celebrity/elite who wishes to sign-up, would actually have to sign a legal document.
  • The body receiving the funds should be State-affiliated.
  • A certain portion of the funds received would be allocated to setting up and establishing a complete public transparency committee to ensure how the funds are being spent, and to prevent corruption.
    -The body who allocates the funds will be comprised of experts in their fields, ie the beginnings of a Meritocratic branch of government. It should also be not-for-profit.
  • Initially the ‘causes’ that the funds contribute towards could vary from country to country, but specific widespread issues (depending precisely on their current pressing needs) should be strictly laid out to garner authentic public support and pressure. Some obvious ways are: cancellation of student debts, national debts, and all austerity measures. After the essential areas are addressed, the fund could expand it’s initiatives.

Conclusion:

The essence of what I am suggesting is to appropriate the media-based precedent set forth by the elites through the ‘Giving Pledge’, and the narcissism, and influence of celebrity culture on popular thinking.

Effectively, this idea is intended to create and establish a Meritocratic branch of the government and to bypass the sham of the current elite driven ‘democratic’ process, and philanthropic posturing (and potentially deepening of current power consolidation).

Thesis: The State directly receiving money(which the elites bypass) through an inheritance tax.

Anti-Thesis: The elites setting up philanthropic foundations ie The Giving Pledge, and maintain their established rulership and influence as a coalescing community, bypassing the States inheritance taxes, and the system in general. Not legally bound.

Synthesis: A legally bound pledge made to an organization which is State-affiliated, with the funds initially going directly to that country’s most pressing social needs determined by a not-for-profit, Meritocratic, and completely transparent body, funded by the pledges.

The Fund could be labelled “The Carnegie Pledge”, and an initial slogan could be "the man who dies rich, dies disgraced". - Carnegie. Another could be, putting people before profit, or debt cancellation before inheritance.


#13

Great work! Definately worth looking into & developing!


#14

Thanks Sean! I recognize that it’s an extremely far-reaching idea(to put it mildly). I also see that even if that idea failed in the larger scope, if the idea got sufficient exposure, it could nonetheless succeed in other aspects. It could help expose people to the elites’ selfishness, insincerity, and self-congratulatory nature.

Even if the idea of being a “government affiliated” body is left aside, is there anything that can stop an organization from collecting funds and spending them on social issues? And if this institution is run meritocratically, can this also be prevented? I think the answer is probably no on both accounts. In effect, aside from the funding needed, how much is there to actually prevent a new governmental system from forming? Does it need to call itself a government? Does it need to be acknowledged by the government?

Another aspect is that this can also prove and expose to the general public what a Meritocratic institution functions like. So in the event that it is necessary to play the election game, Meritocrats will already have proven themselves, and that’s the Meritocratic way! haha. So even more practical and modified versions have great potential to yield many fruits.


#15

I contacted Russell via his agent more than a year ago asking to help in a meritocratic campaign. His agent replied but I heard nothing after that. So I took it Russell was not that interested.


#16

That is interesting, the fake revolutionaries and fake conspiracy theorists tend to blab on and on about the problem but never offer any solutions, leaving people stuck in the “fear porn” as they call it. I’m still leaving an open mind on Russel Brand, he is mentioned on the AC website in a positive light, I also like Bill Myer, a comedian who once said he was for a “100% inheritance tax”. Joseph Campbell was another interesting character, in a documentary series about him he said the Earth was a “Wasteland”, he meant a spiritual wasteland, a term only certain people use.