Russell Brand preaching revolution on Paxman Last Night

joseph brand

Sleepy wrote: »

It's called marketing people.

The working class buy his books, go to his shows and watch him on the telly. Does his bank account no harm to play the "tax the rich" card...

I wouldn't call him wealthy. The Queen, Gates, Buffet, Rotschilds, Rockefellers, etc etc. These are the upper class, the wealthy. Not Mr Brand.

Don't people understand the difference?

Logical Fallacy

Jonny7 wrote: »

Kids will usually complain that parents are "out of touch"

Employees will typically complain that the boss is "out of touch"

Everyone has and will always think that "insert hierarchy" is "out of touch", it's psychological.

However does Brand have realistic working solutions to current issues - or is he just having an idealistic whinge 'bout the government?

My money is on the latter

I don't think it's entirely necessary to limit discussion on issues only to people who have "realistic working solutions". Social and political issues tend to be rather complex, to the point where I doubt anyone in this thread, myself included, would be effectively qualified to talk about them, or offer any real solutions to actual issues beyond the slightly biased and ill informed.

What is important is generating a place where people feel comfortable discussing things to begin with and rather than sitting in a place where they feel the need to instantly shore up and defend themselves they might actually learn something.

With regard to Brand, i think he and others like him have an important roll...they generate discussion, they bring the argument and the subject matter to people who may not give it too much thought and in turn those people may be inspired to try and learn more, either to find consensus with him or disagree with him.

I've heard Brand say repeatedly that he is no expert, nor is he really qualified to even attempt to break down such complex issues, sift though the minute details and then offer solutions. And he is right. However, he is qualified and capable, as we all are, to sit there and think "something is going badly wrong" and then use his available platform to see if other people feel the same.

There seems to be a dangerous trend of people dismissing others simply because they can offer us neither salvation nor utopia but there is almost certainly a middle ground that most of our critical thinking will operate in and it should at least be possible to reach the conclusion that discussion is better than silence.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I like Brand, his stand up, interviews, radio and his tv shows are always entertaining. I have to say that he is a media whore so I take the political substance of what he says with a pince of salt. In fairness though, he's as much an 'expert' as anybody is when it comes to drug abuse and he does work of value here in highlighting the problem, donating his time and money and looking for real answers to help real people who are troubled by this situation.

In this documentary Russell **** off a random man named Gary in a toilet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8gxPeex2Q

Femme_Fatale

strobe wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how do you know he does not engage in philanthropy?

Edit: Actually a quick google seems to suggest he's involved in multiple charities and charitable causes, both in terms of time and money.

Fair enough. The "I don't vote because the ruling classes will screw me anyway" soundbite is what gets me though. I'd take him a whole lot more seriously if it weren't for that nonsense. How can someone in his position even keep a straight face saying that.

did you just do the whole "guy's rich and famous, probably spends all his time and money on sail boats and fancy parties with his rich friends, probably" (but leaving out the probablys) thing, based on absolutely nothing?

That's just you putting words in my mouth but since you bring it up: I'd say it's spot-on. He did after all marry Katy Perry. But it's up to him what he does in his spare time.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

So a rallying cry to....not vote,just sit back and wait for political utopia?

Much easier say when you're completely financially secure, when you couldn't imagine a problem you can't just throw some money at.

I agree, although I also agree it's better than people like him not saying anything - it's just the way they say it is important if they want to be taken seriously.

joseph brand wrote: »

@Charlie: One must get their hair cut before expressing their opinions, let's nor forget. The masses have spoken. Who won 'I'm a celebrity in the X Factor Jungle Kitchen'?

Oh right, so people who spot flaws in what he's saying/doing are automatically vacuous "celeb gossip" merchants?

opr wrote: »

The poor can't criticise the system because they are jealous or don't understand it. The rich can't do so because they're hypocrites only doing it for self serving purposes and the middle class don't because they want to hold onto the small slice of the pie they have got. You can only but admire the genius in it all.

Who says all of the above? Just because some people are stupid enough to think so simplistically doesn't mean it's the grand narrative.

yizorselves

If you use the word pseudo you are a tosser

BlurstMonkey

yizorselves wrote: »

If you use the word pseudo you are a tosser

Everyone masturbates so you're entirely factually accurate there, excluding children and people who's bit have fallen off. Calling someone a tosser for using a word you don't like, (for reasons unknown), is a tosser move though. But that's fine as we've established you're probably a tosser, unless you're not all there downstairs in which case you're only stroking your pseudo-penis.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

I wouldn't call him wealthy. The Queen, Gates, Buffet, Rotschilds, Rockefellers, etc etc. These are the upper class, the wealthy. Not Mr Brand.

Don't people understand the difference?

Well the ULA, SF and Occupy crusties don't. We keep hear the mantra of 'tax da rich', the rich being anyone with a salary of over 100k a year in the latest SF budget proposal.
So yes, using their metrics of wealthy brand is one of them and one of the 1%.

strobe

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Fair enough. The "I don't vote because the ruling classes will screw me anyway" soundbite is what gets me though. I'd take him a whole lot more seriously if it weren't for that nonsense. How can someone in his position even keep a straight face saying that.

That's just you putting words in my mouth but since you bring it up: I'd say it's spot-on. He did after all marry Katy Perry. But it's up to him what he does in his spare time

The people in power can't screw somone if they have money, that's your argument... really?

I've already told you a quick google will show you that's apparently not how he spends all his time.

keeponhurling

Plazaman wrote: »

I thought it was a great interview and love the way he caught snide Paxman out at the end by referencing the "Meet the Ancestors" programme he was on where he found out his granny was screwed over (not literally....I think) by the aristocrats who owned the house she worked in. Paxman ended up boohooing, it was a soothing sight.

I took it to be literal meaning, he did call Paxman's granny a brasser

Guy:Incognito

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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.
You
Excellent.

He could akways "redistribute" his own wealth then preach about the socialist revolution, no?

Or is it just everyone elses wealth that should be redistributed?

Cienciano

Sort of sad the amount of people in this thread that dismiss peoples opinions based on someones looks. Do we all need to have short back and sides and a suit for our opinions to count.
Are we that brainwashed? Even after the mess Fianna Fail/property developers/bank executives have made of the country, we can't trust anyone who doesn't look/dress like them?

Guy:Incognito

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

One of the few articles I've read in recent memory that had me riveted. His articulateness is more obvious when he writes.

You when an edititor fixes it ? :-)

BillyMitchel

I think he's great in just about everything he does and says. Not to mention he's hilarious! All I keep seeing is Osma Bin Laden dancing though!!

I'd join Brands revolution, who's with me? Might put us up in LA for a few weeks before we get started.

Legs.Eleven

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You when an edititor fixes it ? :-)

Come again?

Caliden

I vote but I still agree with his point that it's completely pointless. What choice do you really have when it comes to voting?

When talking politics with friends they always say that Enda Kenny is just as bad as Bertie ever was and everytime I always say, who else is there? The alternative would've been Micheál Martin....

Voting is just the illusion of choice while the large parties exist. I truly believe only independents have a chance of making a difference.

BillyMitchel

Caliden wrote: »

I vote but I still agree with his point that it's completely pointless. What choice do you really have when it comes to voting?

When talking politics with friends they always say that Enda Kenny is just as bad as Bertie ever was and everytime I always say, who else is there? The alternative would've been Micheál Martin....

Voting is just the illusion of choice while the large parties exist. I truly believe only independents have a chance of making a difference.

Of course he's right! Sure looked what happened here when the government didn't get the outcome they wanted, we had to bloody go vote again! I wouldn't encourage anyone not to vote though especially 18/19 year olds.

Wabbit Ears

Russel Brand is malignant cancer in the world of entertainment to the degree that I lose serious respect for anyone who thinks hes anything other than the horrible **** that he is.

anto9

R.B is a fruit cake ,for entertainment value only .

April O Neill

Lollipops23 wrote: »

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.

Really? I wasn't shocked at all! Annoying as he can be, his off-kilter intelligence has always plainly obvious to me.

Pighead

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Russel Brand is malignant cancer in the world of entertainment to the degree that I lose serious respect for anyone who thinks hes anything other than the horrible **** that he is.

He slept with your girlfriend didn't he?

BillyMitchel

Pighead wrote: »

He slept with your girlfriend didn't he?

I thought it was a pretty harsh statement myself. I bet it was a threesome with his sister and girlfriend!

Guy:Incognito

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Come again?

Its more apparent how articulate he is in print beccause an editor has had a run over it before it went to print.

Guy:Incognito

BillyMitchel wrote: »

Of course he's right! Sure looked what happened here when the government didn't get the outcome they wanted, we had to bloody go vote again! I wouldn't encourage anyone not to vote though especially 18/19 year olds.

This "they made us vote till they got qhat they wanted" line is bollocks.(some) Things were changed that peopole moaned about. Should we have stuck with the original divorce vote too and banished any thoughts of ever legalising it forever? Once something is voted on once thats it till the end of time yeah?

phasers

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Russel Brand is malignant cancer in the world of entertainment to the degree that I lose serious respect for anyone who thinks hes anything other than the horrible **** that he is.

Jesus Christ, did he kill your hamster of something?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Can't quite decide who I hate more, Paxman or Brand. Least Brand is a bit cheery, Paxman seems like a grade A ****.

Bits_n_Bobs

Crap interview. Paxman totally obsessing over the fact that Brand doesn't vote, Brand spouting on that things should change but he obviously has not idea to what. Yawn.

BillyMitchel

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

This "they made us vote till they got qhat they wanted" line is bollocks.(some) Things were changed that peopole moaned about. Should we have stuck with the original divorce vote too and banished any thoughts of ever legalising it forever? Once something is voted on once thats it till the end of time yeah?

How is it bollocks, its true. It didn't go their way so they came back with scare mongering rubbish made us vote again. That's a simple fact. They scared people into voting their way. Fact

As for voting again on other things OK fair enough but in this case they knew they had lost and were already planning on a second one!

Seriously wish people would stop making excuses for the clowns that ran this country into the ground.

Guy:Incognito

BillyMitchel wrote: »

How is it bollocks, its true. It didn't go their way so they came back with scare mongering rubbish made us vote again. That's a simple fact. They scared people into voting their way. Fact

As for voting again on other things OK fair enough but in this case they knew they had lost and were already planning on a second one!

Seriously wish people would stop making excuses for the clowns that ran this country into the ground.

Yeah all the big bad government with their scaremongering. Minimum wage at €1.55 and eejits like ben dunne spouting crap like "if you dont understand it just vote no so nothing changes" . Ignorance got a no vote . Just like it got a vote to keep the seanad ( I dont have an opinion either way so wasnt pushed, but my god the amount of idiots around and the rubbish they were coming out with).

Too many people vote against things to keep the satus quo rather than educate themselves.

Frank Lee Midere

Brand is neither an intellectual, a pseudo intellectual or intelligent.

Try writing a policy document based on that rant. Invent an economic system. Decide a tax rate. Work out the monetary supply. Decide on the level of protectionism.

Any real intellectual opinion or solution to the economic problem would not be posted here or on the Internet. Or the Guardian. Because it would be necessarily too difficult. That solution is not , clearly , free market or globalist. Neither is it Statist. Or Keynesian.

Buts Keynes general theory did work for a while - it probably just needs updating. It is however extremely difficult to read. And to remodel for globalist societies.

If we've gone from Keynes to Brand in 2-3 generations, if he is now an intellectual, then we are surely doomed.

He is however right about the ruling classes but that's an observation not a statement of genius or a solution.

Frank Lee Midere

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its more apparent how articulate he is in print beccause an editor has had a run over it before it went to print.

Of course. Even than it reads like he speaks.

I think people are just impressed he could write.