Disclaimer: this is a rant, and it’s a long rant.
You may have read recently that Russell Brand wrote an article in and edited an issue of the New Statesman, and you may have seen him enthusiastically debating with BBC Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman regarding the issues of the exploitation of the people and the environment and what should be done about it. He makes some good points, even if I disagree with some of the things he said. If you haven’t then here is the YouTube clip: –
In his article, and on his Twitter account @rustyrockets, he says that he’s quite willing to give up some of his monetary riches so long as there’s a plan he can get behind.
Fair enough. It’s just like the Beatles said – “You say you want a revolution? Well you know, we all want to change the world”.
Like any man down the pub, I’ve stated my opinions on the way the world turns often enough.
I too, like many people dislike banks telling governments that they should keep riding that credit train all the way to the precipice, pushing the debt ceiling higher, and encouraging the public to do the same, because the joy ride will never end.
Let’s start a new war! Let’s start more wars, in more places! More pork barrel government projects which fail to deliver and cost more than we can afford! More spending! Debt ceiling? Make it higher. Interest payable on the debt? Borrow more. Deficit? Borrow more! Champagne and cocaine all round, paid for by the proletariat!
Bank notes are just paper, credit cards are just plastic; it’s the numbers that mean something, and banks are experts at manipulating these and baffling us with their science. Hell, they even tie themselves in knots, as we saw in 2008.
I dislike that.
I also dislike that they choose to place such great importance on maintaining existing investments and business models (big pharma, the military-industrial complex, privately run prisons) instead of investing their time and money in things that could actually make a difference (community based enterprise, academic research and the start-ups which result).
However; I don’t want to place a bunch of supposed academics and intellectuals in government and organise a re-dispersal of wealth and have us all wearing the same uniforms, because that sounds like communism and while it works great in Star Trek it won’t work with the finite resources we currently have. Besides, as I understand it, politicians are mostly lawyers anyway so they’re probably clever enough as it is.
So what’s my genius plan?
Then I’d disrupt the way the world turns even further.
You see, I agree with Russell that voting doesn’t change much at the moment, because we’re all told that we must choose between red or blue, the Devil or the deep blue sea. Nobody else has a chance of getting into power so anything else is a wasted vote.
Anyway, have you seen some of the other parties? They’re not serious political parties, they’re one-trick ponies with no real policies and their agenda is not yours, it’s theirs! Well, that’s what the red and blue parties say anyway, and the newspapers repeat this, and I suppose lots of people believe it because it’s nearly always the red or the blue parties getting in.
So the next part of my plan has to be to disrupt that.
Well, if you want a job doing properly then you have to do it yourself.
That means that I need to finish my degree, then get a high-paid job, then mix in their circles, then have some policies of my own, then join either the red or the blue party, then develop such a high emotional quotient that I can charm the public into voting for me, then charm the party and convince them to overwhelmingly vote me in as their leader, and then I need to run for government, but…
Does my face look bothered?
Maybe that’s the problem; it’s a hell of a lot of effort to overcome the 1%. First you need to become them, then infiltrate them, then charm them, and only then can you directly influence them.
Is it all a lost cause?
The very reason why corporations have corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes for example, is to pay lip service to the environment and to the communities in which they are proclaiming to be a part of as responsible corporate citizens. This is because they think that by doing this, they will earn the good will and support of the people and that this will be good for their business.
In other words, these corporations (banks included), are susceptible to being influenced by the people.
The people (me included) are influenced by what we see and read in the news, and although Rupert Murdoch may own a great deal of the media and has influence over it, this doesn’t detract from the fact that if the media think that they can earn a pretty penny by telling us what to think then they will do just that.
However, the media look for stories by tapping into what people think and spinning their answers into stories which excite and interest people enough to exchange money for them; so that means that the people can influence the media, and not just the 1%.
People influence the media, the media influences corporations (including banks), and the media along with the corporations influence government policy which becomes law and therefore influences the people.
I’ve told you about how to manipulate this situation before, haven’t I? I’ve told you all about human nature and hierarchies. Whatever group you install in any situation, a leader will emerge or be chosen and that person will have the most control, even if it is behind the scenes.
When you understand it, you can change it.