39 votes

Russell Brand May Have Started a Revolution Last Night

This interviewer Jeremy Paxman is even a more apathetic a-hole than Piers Morgan.


http://youtu.be/3YR4CseY9pk

The revolution itself may not be televised, but on last night's edition of the BBC's Newsnight, viewers may have witnessed the start of one.

Actor-slash-comedian-slash-Messiah Russell Brand, in his capacity as guest editor of the New Statesman's just-published revolution-themed issue, was invited to explain to Jeremy Paxman why anyone should listen to a man who has never voted in his life.

"I don't get my authority from this preexisting paradigm which is quite narrow and only serves a few people," Russell responded. "I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity."

And with that, the first shots of Russell's revolutionary interview were fired.

Over the course of the following ten-or-so minutes, Brand and Paxo volleyed back and forth over subjects ranging from political apathy, to corporate greed, to gorgeous beards.

Throughout the interview, Brand repeatedly dodged Paxman's efforts to trivialize his message — at one point Paxman literally called Brand a "very trivial man" — until finally, even the entrenched newsman appeared to relent against the rushing tide of Brand's valid arguments.

After Brand reminded Paxman that he cried after learning that his grandma too had been "fucked over" by aristocrats, the Newsnight host was stunned into silence.

"If we can engage that feeling and change things, why wouldn't we?" Brand crescendoed. "Why is that naive? Why is that not my right because I'm an 'actor'? I've taken the right. I don't need the right from you. I don't need the right from anybody. I'm taking it."

http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolutio...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Takimag says:

RUSSELL BRAND, PROPHET OF REVOLUTION
Ex-junkie and current dimwit Russell Brand, whose net worth is estimated at $15 million even while he rails against “the rich” and “capitalism,” penned a tortured and childishly unspecific call for “revolution” in a guest editorial for the New Statesman.

Highlights:

For me the solution has to be primarily spiritual and secondarily political….The model of pre-Christian man has fulfilled its simian objective….I hate big banks and banking and bankers….In my mind the revolution has already begun.

In your mind, Russell. In your mind.

http://takimag.com/article/the_week_that_perished_november_1...

Sounds like he wants a

Sounds like he wants a communist revolution. An uninformed intellect can be a dangerous thing. He's right about the symptoms, but his cure of massive wealth redistribution puts him on the enemies list, as far as I'm concerned. I see a lot of supportive comments, the kind I saw about the Occupy movement. Just remember, folks, the old saying about leading a horse to water...

Since when is speaking out publicly about tyranny and corruption

a bad or dangerous thing? In my book exposing governmental oppression and repression is always a good thing. I personally respect his right to free speech and expression. We can't all be as enlightened as some of the people who are so quick to pass judgement on those who are in process of awakening.

I personally welcome all voices willing to speak out against tyranny.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

The interviewer should have

The interviewer should have asked Brand for the reason he believes the "underclass" is not represented by democracy, - is it due to the underclass not being allowed to vote?, or is it rampant voter fraud?, or maybe because the system is a pure democracy, rather than a democratic republic?
If Brand answered that none of those reasons apply, then the interviewer should ask him what alternative society he proposes which would give the underclass a "voice" (read: the wealth) and also be powerful enough to... #1: take everyone's property away from them, And #2: subsequently force all to be equal in wealth and class? One might also ask Brand for more clarification concerning the exact duration and volume of drugs he is claiming to have enjoyed.

Neo-Socialist Utopians such as Brand never seem to take into account human nature while dreaming up collectivist societies. They simply look upon human activity as obscene. "Destruction of the earth" is the description given to any man made addition or alteration in the pre-human landscape.
Brand does not appear to value self-determination, intellect, natural rights, private property or free markets.

Russel Brand must have

Russel Brand must have attended the same economic classes as our president did.

I generally believe that actor's opinions are like poetry or

children. They are interesting only to their creators. I am however coming around on this man and his methods. I quit participating in our political process after I got a peak behind the curtain during Dr.Paul's last run. I believe he knew he would not be allowed to "win". Dr.Paul knows our leaders are NOT elected. They are chosen.They are chosen by bankers. If enough people knew that our electoral process IS a farce to placate the masses perhaps they too wouldn't participate and we could have our revolution. Redistribution of wealth? No maybe not how about victim based dispute resolution under tort and contract law. Does young Aldous Snow have it all figured out? Admittedly no.Is he doing something about the injustice he sees? Yes. Is he drawing attention? I hope so.Is he doing it from Nate R's home town(and the belly of the beast on ALL of humanity's backs)? Hell's yes he is!Good for him!

Aaron Russo, Nikola Tesla, Ron Paul, I'm jus' sayin'

He reminds me of my darling young nephew...

Very bright yet at the same time hugely mistaken about solutions, mostly due to inexperience, immaturity, and just lack of exposure to understand what liberty is. I think he just needs to be presented with good ideas. Wisdom will hopefully follow. How about submitting articles to the magazine he is helping to edit? When presented the liberty message, hunger for it grows.

I see him as charismatic - even if the attraction is not felt by all, it is strong to some, and he is certainly vocal. He is spot on in a lot of what he says. Lets try to educate him on Liberty - the Freedom Philosophy. And I mean educate like the scent of a pumpkin pie fresh out of the oven makes you hungry for it, not bashing him on the head with criticism and opinions like a mallet, lol!

The founder's got two out of three correct,

not bad, but not good enough either. We have three domains of freedom which must be kept whole for a just and civil society:

Physical
Spiritual
Economic

They got the first two correct clearly establishing the demarcation between the government and the individual in respect to our physical and spiritual affairs. The constitution explicitly outlines that the government is to be protective and not destructive of our person, property and papers as well as our spiritual lives.

They did not however, clearly define our right to choose the money that best suited our affairs. Defining a dollar and the amount of gold and silver it was composed of did make sense to bring order to taxation, but they did not explicitly state that this form of currency was NOT compulsory or exclusive leaving the door open for legal tender laws.

Of course implicitly it was obviously not exclusive, as we have happily used foreign coin and privately minted money for long periods of our nations history without trials for counterfeiting since there was no intent to defraud.

In fact in the original coinage act of 1792 there is no language regarding counterfeiting but there is explicit language dealing with the debauching of US coinage by public officials.

With this one flaw by our founders the sociopaths inverted economic gravity making the producer slave to the consumer. The biggest sociopaths are of course masters of this system exercising unlimited consumption. Our current sick society of death and debt, zero-sum-game mentality springs from this flaw.

The monsters and the morally bankrupt in our society float to the top and the ethical and productive are driven to the bottom by this inversion of economic gravity.

Re-establish the natural order of economic gravity and the major ills of society, all manufactured by sociopaths as a means of control, will disappear like the morning mist.

4:25

mark, socialist system he favors rn

For Environment-abusing corporations. Not ALL of them

just saying.

Seems people are latching onto this ONE trivial statement rather than the importance of everything else coming out of his mouth.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Monopoly Capitalist Dogmatists

Flying out of the woodwork to defend their property rights from the mob that they hire to protect their property rights?

A Free Market Government design was proven to work as designed, but that ended with that first Con Con in 1787.

So the idiots who think that their property rights are being defended by their government agents are the socialists who are then led to believe that the defenders of Liberty are the bad guys called socialists?

Those who claim that no government is the solution to their property rights problems are hoping to get enough numbers of people to share their desire to enforce no government upon everyone daring to oppose?

Ron Paul offers a clear example of how voluntary limited government is promoted and no one listens?

What motivates these character assassins infesting an otherwise well governed private free market competitor in the public domain, what motivates the assassins to reach so deep into their dog crap pile of falsehoods so as to assault those who are not as stupid as the Monopoly Capitalist Dogmatists?

Fear?

Their sources of leverage are being threatened by irrefutable facts?

Joe

my liberal friends mostly

love the guy. my libertarian friends can't stand him. i'm always bewildered when i find posts here praising him, defending him. i scratch my head and wonder: am i at the huffington post? nope DP. bizarre.

I'm reminded of the mass

I'm reminded of the mass shooter who was characterized by the media as having complaints about economic policy. Hearing that I wondered if someone on the anti-Fed bandwagon had gone nuts.

Nope. Turns out his complaint was that the government didn't just print up money and hand it out to all of us (equally or
"according to our needs" or some such) so we could have a perfect socialism.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Because he's screwing with the system that's screwing us

Because he's screwing with the system that's screwing us, nothing more. Set aside ideology and goals. He makes etablissement jerk-wads of the ancien regime like Jeremy Paxman and Piers Morgan sweat out their own self-conceived notions of liberalism, and its downright funnny to keep seeing Brand show up these all-knowing all-caring liberal bigshots for the elitist snobs they are.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

sometimes, but then

there's him coming over to piers morgan's camp on gun control. i didn't find that downright funny, but dumb as nails. i did applaud him speaking out in favor of manning.

Yeah, but that's what its like to be a non-Aristocrat Englishman

Yeah, but that's what its like to be a non-Aristocrat Englishman: a total wimp. I can't blame him for his gun control stance. In Britain, only Lords and Earls get to a stock of rifles, pile into the shooting brake, and loll about sipping whiskey while their servants whack bushes to startle the grouse. The rest of the masses are scared out of their pantaloons whenever someone even draws a gun.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

We tried this before...

Government always groes! We can't have smaller government than the founders it didn't work. We need no government.

Hey There

Its a bit off topic, but are you currently living in Brazil?

No, I am in Alaska.

.

Remember during the 2008

Remember during the 2008 crisis when The Fed forced, under the threat of audit and regulatory harassment, various banks to borrow huge sums of money at near zero rates... then proceeded to have those banks deposit that same money back with The Fed at higher rates? Interest rate arbitrage, at the expense of the rest of us. All in order to "save the banks."

Stuff like that happens all the time. Rarely is it ever with the intention of helping the average citizen. Usually it is to make someone's distant cousin rich so that person can hire your political friend's relatives and make contributions to your political campaigns, so it all can be done over and over again. All at your cost.

Squeeze everyone, so they and their friends can get rich.

Remember all the pallets of bribe money that went missing in Iraq?

How about the 2 trillion that Rumsfeld stated was missing... the day before 9/11 happened, then everyone forgot about what he said. That money went somewhere.

Russel Brand might not align completely with us. Heck, he might not align anywhere close to us. But he sure is right about much of what he said.

...

Russel is speaking

From the European socialist perspective. These people were all previously sold on the Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea (like obama supporters). Now that the useful idiots are discovering that socialism causes sovietization and just plain fascist dictatorship, they are pissed and calling for revolution.

I think Russel means well because he actually qualified that he was not talking about the middle class (just the elite) in previous interviews.

The revolution needs to occur, but a constitutional republic is what needs to come out of it with VERY limited government. The Marxist/socialist ideas have been tested many times and always end in tyranny. Big government cannot be easily restrained and will not just melt away like the socialist utopian ideals suggest.

I disagree. Jumping from one

I disagree. Jumping from one huge jail cell to a smaller one isn't changing anything for anyone, you're still not free.... I think a truly free society should come out of it. Anarcho-capitalism ftw.

Your name sums it up.

This guy is such a pile of EuroSocialist, global warming elitist BS.

haha

This thread is a joke, right? Russel Brand starting a revolution? Amongst who, his fan base acquired through "Get Him to the Greek" and his relationship with Katy Perry? Most of them tuned out after his first SAT word, which honestly, that's all this guy is is a bunch of polysyllabic words.

I find it offensive that you're claiming this socialism espousing playboy is sparking the revolution. That lousy congressman from Texas couldn't have been the one to start it, oh, say, 6 yrs. ago.

The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it

Getting people to THINK

is the main thing, putting out the word that the whole system is corrupt.
He is not asking anyone to embrace his way of thinking, just explaining why people are sooo switched off voting or caring about politics.
To him, profit may be a dirty word, but to politicians Revolution is a dirtier one.

Marx

got people thinking, too.

The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it

"A Socialist Egalitarian system based

on the MASSIVE redistribution of wealth. Heavy taxation of corporations, massive responsibility of energy companies that exploit the environment...

...I say profit is a filthy word."

Straight from the horse's mouth. I like his complaints. His view on the world is pretty spot on, too.

His solutions are not good. He doesn't understand the difference between Free Market Capitalism and Monopoly Capitalism, like so many others. Hopefully he will eventually reach the same conclusion that so many of us at the DP have reached regarding this issue.

I do NOT want a socialist egalitarian system based on the redistribution of wealth. I want a Free Market system based on property rights and individual liberty. But that's just me..

No

That's me too. You nailed it on the solutions.

I like

RB, I think he means well. He's funny and charming as hell - but I'm not down with Marxist Socialism or his opinions on guns.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Voting is NOT about achieving good results.

Voting is NOT about achieving good results and good government policy.

Voting is about avoiding war while achieving approximately the SAME results and government policy, minus the death and destruction.

An election is just a poll, to try to see how a war over an issue or a choice among authoritarian leaders is likely to be won. Its sole virtue is convincing the losers that they would also lose a war to reverse its results, so they don't start that war.

People accept election results simply because resistance is futile. Elections fail to stop wars when they are perceived to be inaccurate.

Elections don't make the electorate as a group any smarter, less opinionated, less selfish, less the minions of their charismatic leaders, or less deluded by attractive religions and other ideologies. They just measure the distribution of their opinions on the issues that they might fight about.

Casting a vote is in NO way acknowledging any legitimacy of the election process or the government running it. Neither is it an agreement to abide by the results. Governments operate by coercion. Once coercion is being used against you, you are justified in doing far more to abort or evade the negative effects of that coercion than you are to improve your lot in non-coercive circumstances. That includes voting without intending to knuckle under to whichever devil wins or silly law falls out of the process.

However, refusing to cast a vote, while otherwise remaining opinionated and politically active, is a vote for war. By failing to be polled you reduce the perceived accuracy of the outcome, raising the likelihood that some losing power block may decide the result is bogus and can be reversed by violence.

IMHO refusing to vote should be reserved for situations where the voting system is so corrupted that you may incur a risk by casting a vote.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.