Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
His message is well meaning but I find he uses archaic English to cover up the fact he doesn't know as much as he likes to pretend he does. Criticise the system... take up a position on a political magazine team... but have some ideas behind your opinions, you can't be an armchair critic and then go into an interview like that without some suggestions as to how to make things better, rather than just slating the status quo - that gets us nowhere.
Jeremy Paxman seemed to really want to push him into expressing his ideas and instead got a lot of gibberish in return.
|
I didn't find it that hard to understand him.
He favors a resource based, socialist leaning economy the strives to distribute the wealth of nations more equally than the current system which would require more compassion and help for the underprivileged and working classes and less for the corporations who he sees as being the unfair benefactors of endless second chances, political bias and monetary bailouts.
In addition he adheres to conservationist principals of protecting the planet and using what it has to offer us wisely.
He sees the current political paradigm as being unhelpful background periphery that needs to be done away with altogether as
all the current mainstream choices seem to exist more or less to propagate the currently existing, defunct cultural narrative. To that extent he promotes not apathy but non participation in the current system in an effort to bring about a brand new one that would favor his principals more - principals most sane people would agree with. A more cooperative, less heavy handed government that exists more or less as administrators of simple spiritual beliefs and wealth and resource distributors.
So plenty of ideas. I think he espouses his admittedly ambitious views with great clarity. What you are hinting at and what Paxman seemed to be looking forward to was specifics on the revolution. This I find confusing. Should Brand have given a step by step breakdown of the global overhaul plans that included prospective party names and a time to meet in Trafalgar square to blaze a few fatties and rock the V masks?
I'm not trying to be facetious here - well I kind of am - I'm just genuinely curious. I see this trend all the time. Any time someone from
outside the political paradigm looks in with suggestions they are met with fierce criticism that stems from the innocuous but still pointless "well you've never done politics yourself" to "what are you cracking on about mate with your daft hair and naive ideals, we have real plans here - look, we've typed them out and everything it's all in our manifesto!".
Like I said I believe one of the main things impeding this revolution from occurring is the thought that a revolution is in and of itself naive, unspecific and cannot occur.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stu
brand new
|
There is your party name, for starters.