Russell Brand interview by Paxman

[Glass]

I enjoyed this interview. This guys is a UK comedian if you haven't seen him before. In the vein of George Carlin or Bill Hicks.
I think the guy gets it. Except for maybe one very socialist thing he made comment about I agree with the whole of the thing. Even then I would put it down to talking on your feet.

I'd point out the interviewer is indeed the enemy, a part of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

from ZH and there is an open letter here (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-25/open-letter-russell-brand)

[iOWNme]

Stephan Molyneux gives his analysis in this open letter to Brand. Of course Stephan shows how silly and contradictory Brands stance is of giving more power and money to the people who steal all the power and money. And you can all but guarantee Brand will see this response.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltiviifnA_E

[Glass]

I'm not sure where he is coming from. I didn't pick up on Brand saying more power to the elite. I heard dead set against the elite.

I also think that the responses are more considered and include these "observations" because these respondents have had more time to forumulate their responses where as he (Brand) had to make his responses on the spot. He has the ideas in his head and had to answer some questions that clearly can't be responded to on the spot.

This is a common defusing technique. So now we are debating about the debate process and not the content of the debate so the argument/anger/momentum for change is diffused.

So as I stated I agreed with nearly everything bar one element which on reflection was probably the same point that Moly is pointing to and I can excuse that because he was doing it all off the cuff. He probably didn't expect the conversation to go along those lines. he was probably expecting to talk about his comedy shows and how he got started. The usual kind of interview.

He did have a few bolshie catchphrases in there. If you listen to some of the crap Ben Elton sprouts it was almost an echo on some points.

All in all I think he did well. Not a perfect score but it was an important interview because we are waking people up one person at a time and I'm confident he woke up one person.

[iOWNme]

I'm not sure where he is coming from. I didn't pick up on Brand saying more power to the elite. I heard dead set against the elite.



Brands EXACT words @ 5:10 "I think a Socialistic egalitarian system based on a MASSIVE re-distribution of wealth, HEAVY taxation of Corporations...." "I think the very CONCEPT of profit should be hugely reduced......I think profit is a FILTHY word."

Did we even watch the same interview? Sounds like you may have gotten caught up in Russells wind sails. Yes he sounds good if you are a poor person, but he sounds like Kark Marx to any critically thinking intelligent individual.

When confronted on 'Government' he says he wants a 'Government' but that they shouldnt be called 'Government'. WTF? Changing the word you use to describe something doesnt change the thing being described. You cant change something bad (stealing) into something good (taxation) by changing the name of it. 'Government' is a GANG of violent criminals who use force and coercion on violent innocent people. And yet he actually ADVOCATES for this!

No wonder that country is so much further down the Socialistic Commie hole than we are. But we are on our way.....

And again, Brand wants some type of system in place, so he wont have to take on the RESPONSIBLITY of being a human being and have to judge right and wrong on his own and then act accordingly.

THERE IS NO SYSTEM. There are only men and woman, each doing right or wrong and each one will have to figure out how to get along and fix problems in this world. But trying to IMAGINE a system where mortal men are IMAGINED to have super-human powers and rights HAS NEVER lead to liberty and freedom for the individual.

[Glass]

When confronted on 'Government' he says he wants a 'Government' but that they shouldnt be called 'Government'. WTF? Changing the word you use to describe something doesnt change the thing being described. You cant change something bad (stealing) into something good (taxation) by changing the name of it. 'Government' is a GANG of violent criminals who use force and coercion on violent innocent people. And yet he actually ADVOCATES for this!


yep we watched the same interview but I get what he is on about. I didn't get caught up in anything. Not sure what that sails reference means.

He said we should not call them governent we should call them.... was it administrators? I need to check but the name was significant.

Here is what I think his view on government is but it could take a while to explain.Government is currently a crony enterprise run along party lines.

The existence of "parties" is to the detrement of the voting public. They do not get to choose what person does what job for them. they only get to choose the team, (Red team or Blue team) who then nominate, according to party lines, who will actually do the job.

What about a system where, the people, you and me, having a list of jobs that need doing for them (administering things) list those jobs. Then people nominate to perform that job for you and me.

We, can then vote for those people that nominated for that position based on who we think is best for that job.

So we would say, we need a treasurer, a law and order officer, an education administrator etc. People would nominate, we would vote and then everyone would get down to work

We would remove the party political process which is clearly the broken for the people but works well for the powerpeople.

I feel that this is probably what he was getting at. This type of thing does occur at lower levels I think for things like the sherriff job and so on.

this is what governemnt actually should be. It's just a damn administration job. Lets not turn it into something else that we lose control of as has happened.

And finally like a broken record I will state again so someone might read it. I agreed with him except 1 thing which was the totally socialist statement that he made which sounded like he was channeling ben elton. It sounded like bourgeois this and that. You'd need to hear ben elton to get this, I'm sorry because that would probably be difficult as he is a UK producer. He would fit in at hollywood no problem. But on that socialist marxist point we agree 100%.

For the rest of it I think he thinks like most of us do. And again I'd give him benefit of the doubt given he was responding off the cuff where as we have time to analyse the questions/answers and can suggest finer tuned responses. He didn't have that luxury but I think he did alright.

caveat: I would like to hear more before I decided he was not someone I'd find a political (beliefs) alignment with.
1 poorly made point should not be enough to condemn the guy IMO unless of course he turns out to be a cousin of ben elton... ... which could be a possibility I suppose.

[osoab]

Why should anyone give two shits what Mr. Brand thinks?

He has been and still is promoted by the tribe that owns the entertainment industry.

Thanks Sui Juris for saving me the trouble of watching the act.

[Horn]

Brand gives credit to others for being more able to and better qualified to make the change, admirable.

States that he hasn't thought it through.

He should be hired at every chance to describe the problem.

[iOWNme]

Larken Rose's take.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P98Wv6TKuQk

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

I don't agree with his socialist leanings but he makes some good points about voting and revolution and he's got some wit to him so I'll give him that.

[Glass]

Thanks SJ, I always like that guys take on things. It is tough I think to criticise the guy for waking up and who knows when that happened. It might have only been recent so thoughts are developing. We are all at different points in the learning curve.

I can't put words into Brands mouth but I did watch it again. He is a very subtle pisstaker there in the begining where he is talking about the disenfranchisement blah blah. I'm pretty sure he is winding up Paxman a little bit. Anyway at 4 mins he is into the socialist ben elton diatribe. But it is worth watching again.

Perhaps he might publish something further and we can gain more insight to what he actually thinks an alternative would be.

My interpretation is that the "revolution" would be the massive redistribution of wealth or maybe it would be the destruction of the fiat wealth so everyone is back to square but I can't take those comments as being his discription of what the future organisation of humans would be. I think he says, the reset would be a revolution and the revolution be caused by and result in those things but to extend that out to the future might be reading something in there.

Anyway, thats my benefit of the doubt angle for now. Need more info before I write the guy off. It will be interesting to see if there is any professional fall out from his comments.

[singular_me]

Molyneux is right to debunk Brant as the latter thinks socialism is the solution , unfortunately Molyneux shot himself in the foot when attacking Brant's looks, calling his beard "facial pubic hairs" and assuming Brant's past drug addiction is the result of molestation... attacking somebody's look or psychology is a pretty dumb attitude in this very case since the matter is politico-economics.

===============


Stephan Molyneux gives his analysis in this open letter to Brand. Of course Stephan shows how silly and contradictory Brands stance is of giving more power and money to the people who steal all the power and money. And you can all but guarantee Brand will see this response.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltiviifnA_E

[Horn]

Brand's last sentence in the op video is the message that needs to get out to most.


calling his beard "facial pubic hairs"

Molyneaux was calling out the interviewers Paxman's beard as pubic, not Brand's

[singular_me]

strange, okay.. will listen to it again... though even my companion who watched Molyneux's open letter with me, thought he was referring to Brand's.


Brand's last sentence in the op video is the message that needs to get out to most.



Molyneaux was calling out the interviewers Paxman's beard as pubic, not Brand's

[Horn]

strange, okay.. will listen to it again... though even my companion who watched Molyneux's open letter with me, thought he was referring to Brand's.

Brand himself was making fun with Paxman's beard, Molyneaux joined with him.