[Stu]

Originally Posted by Zee

Paxman was being irritating, but Brand wasn't answering his question so the interview went round in circles. Paxman asked him why people should take him seriously when he's never voted and he's not suggested any ideas, he's just stated the obvious that the system is broken. Brand proceeded to talk around the issue and tried to detract from it by derailing the conversation, that's why I think people are just blindly praising him - most of the comments were "what a legend, love his way with words" or "fancy him so much" - i.e. superficial comments that don't pay the slightest bit of attention to the content of the interview. Despite the way I've posted in this thread, I think his points are fantastic and I look forward to hearing more political thoughts from Russell - I just wish he'd gone into this interview prepared. He's clever enough to talk his way through something he doesn't want to talk about (as all the best politicians do, incidentally) - I think he's an interesting man with some fantastic ideas, he just needs to research them and formulate them instead of batting off direct questions with archaic, wordy sentences.

It's not that I don't understand him, it's that I don't think he understands what he's talking about, with regards to discussing a "revolution" or how the system is broken and needs to be fixed. His points are valid but there's no basis to them, what will happen in this revolution? What needs to happen for it to come about? What should people be doing?

I think Brand was answering his questions perfectly fine so again I'm going to have to disagree. When Paxman asked for ideas Russell gave him some. When he asked him why we should take him seriously because he doesn't vote he explained how he advocates a passive system of non participation in a broken system. What on earth has somebody voting got to do with taking them seriously when it comes to discussing politics? I can see to a Joe Soap how it would seem counter intuitive and a hypocrisy but really that's just abject bullshit when confronted with the logical inference that the individual is not going to win picking between the apple and the orange when they do not like either.

What will happen in the revolution and what do we need to do to bring it about? It could be a quiet revolution. It's an extreme term and conjures images of red stars, your favorite Che mug and abtruse, clumsy quotation of The Matrix movies.

Brand has already hypothesized on the current and coming generations non participation in the current system. This, coupled with increased resistance and non compliance with levies considered unfair, would bring about a hopefully peaceful but nontheless disenfranchised populace who would become agitated into a state of continual respondent backlash which would gradually - with the help of people with the stature of Brand and the open platform of a wonder like the internet contributing to altering the general zeitgeist - push the powers that be out. The more important part of course is getting a system ready to replace it with. See post #1. It's obviously a natural inclination to be dubious about out ability to pull it off but sure what is the harm in trying.

Lets all be Jesus Christs of the impending world to come.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Wow stu and I thought russ blabbered on....

It's the only thing I'm in any way half decent at apart from procrastinating and singing Radiohead songs pissed.