[Jack_]

From Newsnight.

Youtube video

Awesome.

[arista]

Yes I watched it on BBC2HD

Tricky Interview


Yes Jack I am sure you find his view Romantic.


But I want to buy my Bread and Milk
The cogs are Turning

There is No such Revolution.


It can only come after a Nuke War

[Stu]

What an absolute hero.

His discourse is obviously very romantic but there is nothing to what he is saying that cannot conceivably be accomplished by the human race. Passing it up as the fairytale wonderland of a stand up comedian only fosters the sort of apathetic complacency that will impede our inevitable and long overdue spiritual and social revolution.

[Z]

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.

[Stu]

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.

Originally Posted by Stu

brand new

There is your party name, for starters.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Stu

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.


There is your party name, for starters.

Good Post...... Totally agree !!!!!

[arista]

"this revolution"



No way

[Z]

Originally Posted by Stu

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.


There is your party name, for starters.

I mean this in the best possible way, but I just don't have the energy to read and respond to your post properly

He doesn't really give any actual answers to any of Paxman's questions though. He says that he thinks the system is broken. He makes a good point that the system keeps the oppressed oppressed and the elites elitist. Paxman wanted to know what Brand thought should be done about it, and he responded by repeating himself for 10 minutes, he didn't actually answer the question. I wasn't expecting a 5 point plan with diagrams and flip charts, but a simple overview of what he would do if he was able to reconstruct the political system in the country would have sufficed. I'm sure everyone reading this thread could give suggestions on what they would do if they could fix all the problems they see with the country (e.g. change the benefits system, be more environmentally friendly, free sex for everybody!!!... etc) but Brand went round in circles because he was being backed into a corner for once.

I don't take any issue with him taking an interest in politics, I'd much rather our celebrities, the people that so many of us look up to, were engaging, witty, interesting individuals like Russell Brand, I just wish he had more to say on the matter, that's all. I've seen this be posted across social media with people praising him for his words, but he doesn't even say all that much about anything, people are, as usual, taken in by his way with words rather than the meaning of his words. That's all.

The problem with wanting a revolution is that there needs to be an end goal. That's why there hasn't been one (yet) - people don't like the system as it is but nobody has any better, practical suggestions that aren't "yeah, **** the Tories!" or tutting about how terrible they are. People en masse don't know what they want, they just know what they don't want, and that's why there is no revolution in this country (yet).

[Marc]

~flowery writing~

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Zee

I mean this in the best possible way, but I just don't have the energy to read and respond to your post properly

He doesn't really give any actual answers to any of Paxman's questions though. He says that he thinks the system is broken. He makes a good point that the system keeps the oppressed oppressed and the elites elitist. Paxman wanted to know what Brand thought should be done about it, and he responded by repeating himself for 10 minutes, he didn't actually answer the question. I wasn't expecting a 5 point plan with diagrams and flip charts, but a simple overview of what he would do if he was able to reconstruct the political system in the country would have sufficed. I'm sure everyone reading this thread could give suggestions on what they would do if they could fix all the problems they see with the country (e.g. change the benefits system, be more environmentally friendly, free sex for everybody!!!... etc) but Brand went round in circles because he was being backed into a corner for once.

I don't take any issue with him taking an interest in politics, I'd much rather our celebrities, the people that so many of us look up to, were engaging, witty, interesting individuals like Russell Brand, I just wish he had more to say on the matter, that's all. I've seen this be posted across social media with people praising him for his words, but he doesn't even say all that much about anything, people are, as usual, taken in by his way with words rather than the meaning of his words. That's all.

The problem with wanting a revolution is that there needs to be an end goal. That's why there hasn't been one (yet) - people don't like the system as it is but nobody has any better, practical suggestions that aren't "yeah, **** the Tories!" or tutting about how terrible they are. People en masse don't know what they want, they just know what they don't want, and that's why there is no revolution in this country (yet).

Brand repeated himself out of necessity as I see it. It was Paxman more or less asking the same infantile "well what are you going to do about it?" questions over and over - wrapped up in this smug mirth about having to interview The Sun's 'Shagger Of The Year' about the political spectrum - that pushed Russell to have to eschew his values and suggestions again and again and again ad nauseam.

How do you know people were taken in by the color of his vocabulary and not by the contents of it? I'm sure there were a few fans who watched the video essentially because he is sexy and a bit funny but I imagine the vast majority of people the interview struck a chord with - myself included - had absolutely no trouble both understanding and empathizing with his pretty obvious, clearly spoken suggestions on how to improve the sociopolitical paradigm.

The end goal to Brand's revolution is clear. A resource based ...

[lostalex]

Who cares what Russell Brand has to say? he's a comedian, he's not meant to be taken seriously.

[the truth]

I think Brands strongly held Christian beliefs are a strong part of his desire for financial political cultural redistribution. He is smart enough to realise that to preach Christianity is frowned upon by the dumbed down masses, who equate Christianity and Islam as somehow equally morally repugnant, with the mindless moral relativism that pollutes us

I think his verbose outbursts do have great value however. These are pretty much Christian values and opinions in many ways. But he uses his knowledge and verbose eloquence to see the ideas to a new generation

He doesn't need to become a policy maker at this stage. Getting the moral argument right is key and he does on many issues. Though his drugs approach is often to liberal for my liking

He should really look to target the far right and challenge them in debate.
If he entered politics it would surely sap his energies to change the world
He needs to do more in external politics and this editorial position is a good start.

He does however need now to get more serious and improve his command of these subjects in a way Tony Benn would do or George Galloway. Not an easy task. but with his ability , his enormously powerful status, millions listen to his every word, plus access to powerful people with socialist leanings and the interweb communicating every idea to masses. It IS possible
who was Obama 10 years ago?

YES WE CAN

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Who cares what Russell Brand has to say? he's a comedian, he's not meant to be taken seriously.

TOUCHE

[Stu]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Who cares what Russell Brand has to say? he's a comedian, he's not meant to be taken seriously.

The best comedians are the ones who can espouse ideas and be funny about it. Bill Hicks is my hero and he was an [admittedly blunt] political philosopher simply masquerading as a comedian.

In any case your assessment that someone should never be taken seriously - no matter the content or context - because or their day job is complete claptrap and far too shallow and easy a conclusion to draw.

Politicians should conversely be taken seriously because they showed up to the rat race with a tie?

Originally Posted by the truth

I think Brands strongly held Christian beliefs are a strong part of his desire for financial political cultural redistribution. He is smart enough to realise that to preach Christianity is frowned upon by the dumbed down masses, who equate Christianity and Islam as somehow equally morally repugnant, with the mindless moral relativism that pollutes us

I think his verbose outbursts do have great value however. These are pretty much Christian values and opinions in many ways. But he uses his knowledge and verbose eloquence to see the ideas to a new generation

He doesn't need to become a policy maker at this stage. Getting the moral argument right is key and he does on many issues. Though his drugs approach is often to liberal for my liking

He should really look to target the far right and challenge them in debate.
If he entered politics it would surely sap his energies to change the world
He needs to do more in external politics and this editorial position is a good start.

He does however need now to get more serious and improve his command of these subjects in a way Tony Benn would do or George Galloway. Not an easy task. but with his ability , his enormously powerful status, millions listen to his every word, plus access to powerful people with socialist leanings and the interweb communicating every idea to masses. It IS possible
who was Obama 10 years ago?

YES WE CAN

You sound like a Christian trying to claim Brand as one of your own. Is this the case?

From reading up on him Brand admires the mythic archetype of Jesus Christ but his spirituality is a clear unspecified, less-on-the-dogma blend of Vedantic traditions. He practices kundalini and has a well documented fondness for Hare Krishna.

A practicing, Bible reading Christian he is not. A lot of his views may have resulted from being raised in that environment but a lot of peoples views tend to correspond to those of Christs.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Stu

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.


There is your party name, for starters.

You're like our very own Russell

[MTVN]

What Brand proposes is seriously radical though and could only take place on an international level and couldn't work within one country in the current global system, like Hollande in France has tried to put in a more egalitarian government with massive taxes on the wealthy and the big companies, and trying to roll back austerity measure, and it's not working anywhere near as effectively as he hoped

I do think Paxman is missing the point a bit by berating him for not voting though because there's not much chance he could get the change he wants in this country by doing so, it'd be pointless, and the whole "if you don't vote you can't complain" attitude is just very annoying

[Z]

Originally Posted by Stu

Brand repeated himself out of necessity as I see it. It was Paxman more or less asking the same infantile "well what are you going to do about it?" questions over and over - wrapped up in this smug mirth about having to interview The Sun's 'Shagger Of The Year' about the political spectrum - that pushed Russell to have to eschew his values and suggestions again and again and again ad nauseam.

How do you know people were taken in by the color of his vocabulary and not by the contents of it? I'm sure there were a few fans who watched the video essentially because he is sexy and a bit funny but I imagine the vast majority of people the interview struck a chord with - myself included - had absolutely no trouble both understanding and empathizing with his pretty obvious, clearly spoken suggestions on how to improve the sociopolitical paradigm.

The end goal to Brand's revolution is clear. A resource based ...

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?

[Nedusa]

Look ... Let's cut to the chase, the people with money and power regardless of how they got that money or power will never ever give it up without a fight.

Armed revolution probably is the only way ever to level the playing field , that's it pure and simple...!!!!

[Z]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Look ... Let's cut to the chase, the people with money and power regardless of how they got that money or power will never ever give it up without a fight.

Armed revolution probably is the only way ever to level the playing field , that's it pure and simple...!!!!

An armed revolution isn't all that likely unless our government became a dictatorship - people don't feel compelled to rise up against something if they don't feel that the cause is worthy. The government might be a bit ****, but they aren't as of yet arresting dissidents, bombing communities or taking away basic rights so I don't see it happening any time soon.

[Kizzy]

Wow stu and I thought russ blabbered on....
Seriously though, he would be less the ragged trousered philanthropist and more the ragged headed, but he could be a political tsunami if he put his mind to it.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Zee

An armed revolution isn't all that likely unless our government became a dictatorship - people don't feel compelled to rise up against something if they don't feel that the cause is worthy. The government might be a bit ****, but they aren't as of yet arresting dissidents, bombing communities or taking away basic rights so I don't see it happening any time soon.

You're right of course, things would have to get a lot worse for a lot more people before we ever got into that situation and unlike the US the UK is not awash with guns so an armed uprising is unlikely and a non armed uprising could be put down by the armed forces fairly quickly...!!

[Z]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

You're right of course, things would have to get a lot worse for a lot more people before we ever got into that situation and unlike the US the UK is not awash with guns so an armed uprising is unlikely and a non armed uprising could be put down by the armed forces fairly quickly...!!

I'd imagine if any kind of weapons based conflict were to arise in the UK, it would sadly be of the bombing building variety... ideally it would be a peaceful revolution, an ideological one, dying for your country while fighting against your country seems like a tragic waste of life.

[Ninastar]

well said Zee.

[Me. I Am Salman]

Why can't people just speak in a way that everyone understands. Stop using fancy words you found from google

[Me. I Am Salman]

I understand what Zee is saying though so that doesn't apply to him