Russell Brand preaching revolution on Paxman Last Night

beezowdoodoo

So last night Russell was on Jeremy Paxman's show talking about how he doesn't vote because he knows the ruling class will just **** him and his in the arse again like they have since history began and how change and revolution is coming as people become aware of the farcical nature of the current governmental systems through the information liberating qualities of the internet. The video is well worth the watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

I believe in what he says, but then again I am an idealist. I think he comes across like John Lennon with bells on, and looking back at it now his career does have some similarities to Lennon's. i for one look forward to our new peaceful, loving overlords.

iDave

Saw it last night. Talking incoherent rubbish, don't know why Paxman bothered.

Lollipops23

Russell Brand can do my head in when he does stand up, but reading his articles for the Guardian is always great. I was shocked at how articulate and intelligent he came across the first time I read one.

4zn76tysfajdxp

beezowdoodoo wrote: »

I think he comes across like John Lennon with bells on, and looking back at it now his career does have some similarities to Lennon's.

I hope so.


...


I kid, I kid.

El_Dangeroso

beezowdoodoo wrote: »

the ruling class will just **** him

Says the multi-millionaire.

beezowdoodoo

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Says the multi-millionaire.

Who didn't come from it and came to it by clowning.

Bexley Purring Widower wrote: »

I hope so.


...


I kid, I kid.

I have 10,000 t-shirts with his face on ready for selling on that fateful day.

SEPT 23 1989

Big fan of David Icke so he is

beezowdoodoo

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Big fan of David Icke so he is

As much as David suffers from paranoid delusions of lizards ruling the world he actually has some interesting things to say about that don't involve the transdimensional iguanas.

BabyGorilla

He makes me think of Jez from Peepshow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARyhJdMvy4s

conorhal

The Arab spring painfully underlined the limitations of on-line protest and democracy. Technology seems to trivialize and silo individuals while drowning everything else in banality.
I suspect his revolution's sole achievement (if it ever came to pass) would be the election 'Primeminister LOL Cat'.

With the Snowden affair etc, there is much debate at the moment as to whether or not technology is slowly creeping towards creating an 'Orwellian big brother society' , a far greater danger was outlined by Aldpous Huxley

http://www.highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/

jimgoose

Mr. Brand is a pseudo-intellectual, overpaid middle-class media luvvie with abandonment issues and I would love to rip his arm off and beat him to death with it.

Banjo String

What a tit.

Didn't even watch the video either

sok2005

You gotta admire his passion. You could probably just sell old Che Guevara T-shirts and pass him off as Brand!

ruthloss

iDave wrote: »

Saw it last night. Talking incoherent rubbish, don't know why Paxman bothered.

I just watched the Vid. I could not say any of it was 'incoherent'.

Nodin

beezowdoodoo wrote: »

So last night Russell was on Jeremy Paxman's show talking about how he doesn't vote because he knows the ruling class will just **** him and his in the arse again like they have since history began and how change and revolution is coming as people become aware of the farcical nature of the current governmental systems through the information liberating qualities of the internet..

....god love his optimism.

Jimoslimos

Some good points but probably veers too far down the socialist path. Voter apathy or disillusion is a big problem in the UK, the current "first past the post" electoral system does little to counter this. (Hence the Conservatives campaigning for it to be kept)

He has a tendency to waffle in interviews but his writing can be rather good. Especially the piece he did on Margaret Thatcher a few years back, well worth dragging up every time some revisionist tries to tell us about her "great legacy"

beezowdoodoo

Actually his other appearance on Pax is worth the watch if you haven't seen that one either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYM7SzJMKns

conorhal wrote: »

The Arab spring painfully underlined the limitations of on-line protest and democracy. Technology seems to trivialize and silo individuals while drowning everything else in banality.
I suspect his revolution's sole achievement (if it ever came to pass) would be the election 'Primeminister LOL Cat'.

With the Snowden affair etc, there is much debate at the moment as to whether or not technology is slowly creeping towards creating an 'Orwellian big brother society' , a far greater danger was outlined by Aldpous Huxley

http://www.highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/

I think the power of illumination the internet has is equal to or greater than it's nullifying effect. And sure if it's the other way I have a lovely warm tech-opiate coma to look forward to. It's a win-win.

Banjo String wrote: »

What a tit.

Didn't even watch the video either

*crickets*

LuckyLloyd

If the Internet was achieving what he and his ilk claims it is then we wouldn't have recent studies demonstrating the horrible extent to which the general British Public Perception is wide of the mark. We have more access to information than ever before, but it isn't producing a more clued in and perceptive electorate.

The truth is that people have zero interest in seeing through the looking glass. The Daily Mail online is a sensation of the times. A news website successfully identifying and furnishing oceans of the type of information people want. Doesn't smell like revolution in the air to me...

Temptamperu

I don't know why people don't like Brand. Hes a smart and articulate individual who has over come much adversity in life to get where he is now.

Oh maybe I know, jealousy is an awful thing.

Jonny7

This is good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDCtFTyw6fI

Call Me Jimmy

He's a good lad.

Is idealism completely dead inside people who couldn't stand to even listen to him speak?
Fair enough if he grates you irrespective of what he's saying.

He's not really talking ground-breaking stuff there, admits he is completely unqualified, and his bit is in promoting and popularising the ideas.
As he said, he's hardly going to outline the next generation global political system, but his heart is undoubtedly in the right place and I don't understand the balking.

ruthloss

beezowdoodoo wrote: »

Actually his other appearance on Pax is worth the watch if you haven't seen that one either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYM7SzJMKns

I watched that one just now., quite honestly I liked it.

Khannie

beezowdoodoo wrote: »

I think the power of illumination the internet has is equal to or greater than it's nullifying effect.

For now.

endacl

Randy Bustle = John Lennon? Seriously?!?

wretcheddomain

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

He's a good lad.

Is idealism completely dead inside people who couldn't stand to even listen to him speak?
Fair enough if he grates you irrespective of what he's saying.

He's not really talking ground-breaking stuff there, admits he is completely unqualified, and his bit is in promoting and popularising the ideas.
As he said, he's hardly going to outline the next generation global political system, but his heart is undoubtedly in the right place and I don't understand the balking.

Oh give over!

He talked about the redistribution of wealth implying he was a 'tacit' supporter of socialist ideals yet forgot to mention that his own personal wealth was built on the back of non-socialist principles. In other words, he undermines his own credibility.

As for the accusations of incoherency, I wholeheartedly endorse them. He tends to throw out words which attempt to make himself look smart but ultimately it's just a load of waffle. There's very little substance behind the words, just ends up a stockpile of emotional blather.

And no, there will be no revolution in the UK. Maybe he started taking drugs again?

His ideas are simplistic, mediocre, pseudointellectual garbage that only proto-socialists and thirteen year old kids would find in any way appealing.

I am pie

In an ideal world rusty buckets....alas, the revolution isn't coming anytime soon.

hatrickpatrick

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Says the multi-millionaire.

Wealth and political power are not identical concepts, something a lo0t of people utterly fail to understand about people who are currently protest. It's not always about money.
I could be the richest man in the world and I'd still be pissed off at how our government is behaving. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

iDave

ruthloss wrote: »

I just watched the Vid. I could not say any of it was 'incoherent'.

Fair enough, personally I don't consider rambling about a supposed revolution and talk of vague new forms of government which he failed to define coherent.

conorhal

Temptamperu wrote: »

I don't know why people don't like Brand. Hes a smart and articulate individual who has over come much adversity in life to get where he is now.

Oh maybe I know, jealousy is an awful thing.

Folks that mistake loquacious for knowledgeable often end up with a cupboard full snake oil bottles.....

wretcheddomain

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I could be the richest man in the world and I'd still be pissed off at how our government is behaving. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Hypothetically, if I had a wealth of €20 billion accrued through capitalism and then started preaching about the values of Socialism, how seriously would you take me?

In other words, while the concept of socialism cannot be attacked, we can certainly attack my hypocrisy in this regard.

In the same way, we can attack the hypocrisy of Brand, the only difference here is that Brand is waffling here and doesn't really have any points that deserve further contemplation.

BlurstMonkey

jimgoose wrote: »

Mr. Brand is a pseudo-intellectual, overpaid middle-class media luvvie with abandonment issues and I would love to rip his arm off and beat him to death with it.

It pains me to think how many women I know that call him a genius, the brunt of this impression coming from the fact that he's half way articulate, and after that I won't say where else.

wretcheddomain

BlurstMonkey wrote: »

It pains me to think how many women I know that call him a genius, the brunt of this impression coming from the fact that he's half way articulate, and after that I won't say where else.

If people don't understand something, they can't undermine it and a good deal of people will assume the person knows what they're talking about. I guess that's where this problem stems from.

In the same way, if I were to waffle about nuclear physics in a technical way which nobody here could understand, they might be of the impression I know what I'm talking about and it'd take an expert of some sort to dismiss me.

Unfortunately, too many people respect others due to the use of fancy words or so-called articulateness and automatically make an assumption they're worth listening to.

AlanG

I loved the way he said to get rid of the Government by revolution. Then when asked who would tax all the rich people he wanted an elected administration – but don’t call them government, call them something else. So basically a revolution to change the meaning of the word Government.

wretcheddomain

AlanG wrote: »

I loved the way he said to get rid of the Government by revolution. Then when asked who would tax all the rich people he wanted an elected administration – but don’t call them government, call them something else. So basically a revolution to change the meaning of the word Government.

And who would elect this new 'elected administration'? You guessed it, the same people who elected the 'current administration' ~ the same people will naturally gravitate to parliament no matter what Brand claims.

beezowdoodoo

endacl wrote: »

Randy Bustle = John Lennon? Seriously?!?

They're coming from the same place, both 'harmless' entertainers who went on to use their platforms for good.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Oh give over!

He talked about the redistribution of wealth implying he was a 'tacit' supporter of socialist ideals yet forgot to mention that his own personal wealth was built on the back of non-socialist principles. In other words, he undermines his own credibility.

As for the accusations of incoherency, I wholeheartedly endorse them. He tends to throw out words which attempt to make himself look smart but ultimately it's just a load of waffle. There's very little substance behind the words, just ends up a stockpile of emotional blather.

And no, there will be no revolution in the UK. Maybe he started taking drugs again?

His ideas are simplistic, mediocre, pseudointellectual garbage that only proto-socialists and thirteen year old kids would find in any way appealing.

Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't detract from their argument. 'It's just a load of waffle' is not an adequate criticism of his words, what he says is true on a very basic level.

While there is no revolution happening in the UK, there were riots that brought the country to a standstill for a week, the Red Cross is feeding their poor of the UK for the first time since WW2 and the number of children with rickets is on the increase.

As for your criticism of his simplicity, the simpler the idea the better.

You're just a someone who's left compassion behind.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Hypothetically, if I had a wealth of €20 billion accrued through capitalism and then started preaching about the values of Socialism, how seriously would you take me?

In other words, while the concept of socialism cannot be attacked, we can certainly attack my hypocrisy in this regard.

In the same way, we can attack the hypocrisy of Brand, the only difference here is that Brand is waffling here and doesn't really have any points that deserve further contemplation.

His point still stands, the current operations of western capitalism are unjust and cannot continue without leading to collapse.

4zn76tysfajdxp

beezowdoodoo wrote: »

Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't detract from their argument.

...


Doesn't it...?

opr

It's amazing that within a country that has been buggered by successive governments, seen massive corruption within the ruling classes, accepted huge burdens of debt are so derogatory to what he's saying. All within a time where instead of looking for change we're finding ways to propogate the current system largely at the expense of the people.

Yes he talks about things in broad stokes while providing little in the way of answers but he freely admits that all he's trying to do is draw attention to the issues while others far more qualified than him are available to paint in the picture. Still all you need to do is read through the majority of replies to this thread to understand why no revolution is coming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk

Opr

Savoir.Faire

He really needs to visit a good barber. How can you take a man seriously with a mop like that? It's almost as unruly and ill-conceived as his half-baked ideas and opinions.

Dravokivich

Savoir.Faire wrote: »

He really needs to visit a good barber. How can you take a man seriously with a mop like that? It's almost as unruly and ill-conceived as his half-baked ideas and opinions.

you could always close your eyes, or not look at someone, if their appearance makes it harder for you to listen.

Karl Stein

So you can't have an opinion on income/power/wealth distribution if you're poor because you'll be labelled a begrudger and you can't have one if you're rich/famous because you're a hypocrite.

So the very valid points he raises get buried under the accusations of hypocrisy, former drug addiction, promiscuity and whatever else you're having yourself.

Excellent.

strobe

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Says the multi-millionaire.

I find the guy annoying as hell, but he was out protesting and marching and writing letters and campaigning and whathaveyou since he was 15. Long before he made his entertainment industry money.

Such a bolox dismission (if that's a word - when you dismiss something?) anyway. Nothing says you can't still be concerned about people without money when you have it. Just like no reason you can't be concerned about or speak out on behalf of slaves when you have your freedom, or victims of abuse when you're not one etc etc.

If more people with wealth continued voicing concerns and having empathy for the plight of those less so when they made thier cash, rather than having a "well ****everyone else now, I got mine" attitude, the world would probably be a better place.

wretcheddomain

I agree with Paxman; his facetiousness doesn't exactly give the impression he's all that serious about the simple points he raises. I mean, who doesn't raise those points anyway? It's almost a tautology.

Joshua J

Well if the boring clones in grey suits talked with as much passion, honesty and lucidity that Russell does then maybe there'd be less voter apathy.

wretcheddomain

Joshua J wrote: »

Well if the boring clones in grey suits talked with as much passion, honesty and lucidity that Russell does then maybe there'd be less voter apathy.

Passion? It was drama. Big difference.

Honesty? Meh, we learned nothing.

Lucidity? It was obscurantism dressed in words.

Less voter apathy? For the aforementioned reasons, I think not.

ScumLord

wretcheddomain wrote: »

He talked about the redistribution of wealth implying he was a 'tacit' supporter of socialist ideals yet forgot to mention that his own personal wealth was built on the back of non-socialist principles. In other words, he undermines his own credibility.

We all have to play the game of capitalism, we have no choice. It doesn't mean you can't highlight what's wrong with the system and want it to change.

It's all too easy for someone in his position to cry for revolution. It's usually people in his position that want revolution for the masses below them. Most people who have families want stability and won't be jeopardizing what they have for the promise of a better world. Things will have to get a hell of a lot worse before the families take the risk of revolution.

Joshua J

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Passion? It was drama. Big difference.

Honesty? Meh, we learned nothing.

Lucidity? It was obscurantism dressed in words.

Less voter apathy? For the aforementioned reasons, I think not.

I think you're way off the mark but whatever, I respect your personal opinion.

endacl

Dravokivich wrote: »

you could always close your eyes, or not look at someone, if their appearance makes it harder for you to listen.

It's the torrent of bollickology that makes it hard to listen.

YFlyer

endacl wrote: »

Randy Bustle = John Lennon? Seriously?!?

They both practice transcendental meditation.

Russell Brand is a promoter of the David Lynch Foundation.

Aotearoa

i never understand why people have a pop at people who don't vote.

i dont vote either. but its not out of apathy,its out of a disconnect between me and the options available and the system being flawed.
if you voted fine gael based on endas 5 point plan- which he hasn't delivered on-you are complicit in that shower of clowns being in power.

its easy to denigrate brand and his ilk but to be fair he made a lot of valid points and in an incredibly eloquent and erudite manner.he is better spoken than any politician i can think of in our government.

my Grandad didn't vote in the last election and summed up his reason brilliantly :

"they are all pimples on the same arse"

Aotearoa

iDave wrote: »

Saw it last night. Talking incoherent rubbish, don't know why Paxman bothered.

if you genuinely thought that was incoherent i am surprised.
he articulated his points almost flawlessly.

Femme_Fatale

Temptamperu wrote: »

I don't know why people don't like Brand. Hes a smart and articulate individual who has over come much adversity in life to get where he is now.

Oh maybe I know, jealousy is an awful thing.

Relax the knee and just ponder for a few moments... Yes, there are other reasons for finding someone unappealing besides jealousy.

There is nothing wrong with being passionate about social justice even if you're middle-class or wealthy and living in the west and thus enjoying the fruits of capitalism. IMO, ethically and morally it's the way people should be. It's a damn sight preferable to being a heartless greedy **** (e.g. some of the vile attitudes on the thread about distribution of wealth in the U.S.)

I'd take him seriously if he put some of his money towards education programmes for deprived kids in localities near where he grew up (grassroots is where to start making a difference IMO) rather than hanging out in vapid Lala-land with Katy ****ing Perry.

To be fair, I used to dislike him for his cockiness, but he seems to have more humility these days - so credit to him for that.