Russell Brand destroys MSNBC host

I don't really like Brand's comedy or his personality, but surprised to see anybody claiming that that Paxo guy did a good job. From what I saw he acted far more like a petulant child than Brand did. He had an eternal pouty british twat face the entire time. I mean yeah i can understand if your hatred or dislike for Brand is overwhelmingly strong, but to defend that reporter... really? That sort of invalidates the honesty of anything you say after a statement like that, i find it literally unbelievable. Paxman 'gave up' because he exhausted every generic stock response that an obedient journalist is supposed to give to someone who is openly disillusioned by politics, a litany of condescending and child like comments acting as if only one paradigm exists. Pretty pathetic display

Edited October 25, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

correct me if i'm wrong but this guys 'face just screams 'im a giant twat'

 

  On 10/25/2013 at 10:56 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

I don't really like Brand's comedy or his personality, but surprised to see anybody claiming that that Paxo guy did a good job. From what I saw he acted far more like a petulant child than Brand did. He had an eternal pouty british twat face the entire time. I mean yeah i can understand if your hatred or dislike for Brand is overwhelmingly strong, but to defend that reporter... really? That sort of invalidates the honesty of anything you say after a statement like that, i find it literally unbelievable. Paxman 'gave up' because he exhausted every generic stock response that an obedient journalist is supposed to give to someone who is openly disillusioned by politics, a litany of condescending and child like comments acting as if only one paradigm exists. Pretty pathetic display

LITERALLY UNBELIEVABLE

 

Paxman was asking what sort of method would be used to elect the 'central body' in Brand's utopia. Clearly, the only answer is 'voting', because anything else is unfair and despotic, something Brand danced around very awkwardly('there would be a hierarchy').

 

You can take issue with the fact that our politicians are purchased by corporations, that the shadowy hand of our reptiloid NWO overlords is unmoved by our elections, but it's undeniable fact that voting has an impact on at least local elections. Even Obama - you could try to make the argument that Obama would have been the same as McCain, but that would only be true through the lens of military spending. Obamacare makes a real difference in real people's lives, it's undeniable, and if you don't know somebody who's life has been made better by Obamacare then I congratulate you on your privileged circle of friends. You can certainly argue that it's just a pittance in the face of all of our social injustice, spying regimes, lack of a real public option, etc., but if you say voting makes NO difference you are just admitting that YOU are a petulant child who thinks that immediate change at a smaller scale that impacts real people's lives is valueless.

A revolution is a necessary condition for the invention of political alternatives. This is why revolutions use terminology such as "year three of the revolution". This is nothing strange. Democracies also invent things all the time.

  On 10/26/2013 at 1:08 AM, poblequadrat said:

 

A revolution is a necessary condition for the invention of political alternatives. This is why revolutions use terminology such as "year three of the revolution". This is nothing strange. Democracies also invent things all the time. You need an initial strategy, but you also need a political organisation of some sort to invent one. You don't offer any of that out of the blue, that would be utopianism like those 19th century books about societies where everything, down to the smallest details, is described. Parliamentary democracy wasn't pre-invented before the fact either. Things don't happen that way.

Also, Paxman is poorly disguised trash TV. It's nice to see politicians sweating, but in the end he's all fluff and prejudice.

Honestly if I lived in the UK I don't know if I'd vote - New Labour makes me cry.

Also, parliaments aren't a guarantee of freedom - there can be any number of forms of voting which don't involve either useless assemblies nor parliaments. The most important thing is what you are allowed to elect. The Paris Commune and its failings is still something to study, in my opinion.

 

 

FUCK YOU WHY CANT YOU VOTE YOU FUCKING SHITBIRD

new york had a similar thing recently - pay the damn rent party?

 

paxman - he's a patriotic left winger and he will rip apart fraudsters and shills live on air. havent seen the video of him with brand. if someone beats paxman in an interview then that guy's considered to be talented. i didnt think much of paxman because he's a wanker, but i remember him interviewing american soldiers that had been fighting in iraq. the soldiers spoke honestly and paxman showed them a lot of respect. if people are honest and straight-talking with him then they get treated with respect. russell brand is a drug addict and fop

Edited October 26, 2013 by chunky

The answers are pretty self explanatory if you ask me. So I think using that as criticism doesn't make sense. He also DOES offer up solutions.

Please start a list of Russell Brand solutions for saving the world from these atrocities.

 

I'll start for you:

- stop voting

- wait for the revolution or start one yourself by setting up tents at wallstreet

- be honest and sincere and nice to other people

- return to your true self and get back in contact with your soul

- same but for nature and the environment

- ....

 

Now it's your turn for Russell Brand politics!

- tax the rich

- close those tax free havens

- stop making war

He's an comedian/actor/writer who is speaking out on these issues because he can. He's brave enough to do so where others wouldn't/couldn't and manages to articulate it in an entertaining way. He's not actually trying to introduce a Russell Brand political party or be a revolutionary leader himself, these are not his areas of expertise.

  On 10/26/2013 at 12:47 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

correct me if i'm wrong but this guys 'face just screams 'im a giant twat'

 

A guy is a twat because he has certain facial expressions? I think a guy is a twat for thinking that someone is a twat because of facial expressions.

 

I'm also a twat, obviously.

 

 

 

@wabby: don't spoil the fun please. Just when some people are arguing Brand offered some real answers/solutions, you let them of the hook by getting all rational again. Stop doing that!

Edited October 26, 2013 by goDel

For the people who enjoy reading Brands verbal diarrhea:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

 

  Quote

We require a change that is beyond the narrow, prescriptive parameters of the current debate, outside the fortress of our current system. A system predicated on aspects of our nature that are dangerous when systemic: greed, selfishness and fear. These are old, dead ideas. That’s why their business is conducted in archaic venues. Antiquated, elegant edifices, lined with oak and leather. We no longer have the luxury of tradition.

This piece begs the question: is he writing this as a comedian (read: is he making fun of revolutionists and occupiers?) or is he dead serious?

Can someone type out a transcript so I don't have to spend 10 minutes watching it?

You want someone else to spend way more than the 10 minutes you don't want to spend watching it writing a transcript for you so you can save a few minutes?

he's got a thing for interior decorating, doesn't he? He's obsessed with "archaic venues. Antiquated, elegant edifices, lined with oak and leather. "

 

I've defended him somewhat in the past, saying he's articulate and interesting, but in this interview he really does come across as shallow and in fact, not very confident. Seems unhappy.

  On 10/26/2013 at 9:20 AM, azatoth said:

You want someone else to spend way more than the 10 minutes you don't want to spend watching it writing a transcript for you so you can save a few minutes?

yes.

chen, i would almost write a transcript for you. almost.

 

but would you read it though?

This is the thing with banter that I always find - that people use it to say things they really mean by using 'banter' as a pretext to get away with saying them - the trouble is, do they mean the same thing if you say it as if you're 'only joking'? Also, people like Russell Brand have to talk at such a fast pace so that others wont have time to think, whether or not the words actually make sense, or what they actually mean. The hosts were clearly not really engaged or invested in the discussion and were going through the motions of light hearted morning TV - just relying on the clichéd format, they weren't expecting to have to think hard enough to make sense of whether or not Russell was being serious or not.

 

It's the same thing that happened in the Paxman interview, I quite like (whether or not it is intentional) how Russell is able to undermine these formats by drawing attention to the self mockery which conceals the more serious power functioning that these shows are unconsciously complicit in.

 

For example, the stereotyped news format keeping reality at a comfortable distance and the mocking political interviewer allowing us to maintain our sense of pride by mocking politicians without having to deal with the fact that these people still wield power.

 

It's the same problem I have with Boris Johnson - be serious Boris, you are still in charge, I don't find your daftness cute.

 

At some point in this, Zizek makes that point about Berlusconi

 

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

imagine Russell Brand as a character in Team America

i think russell brand is doing comedy, pushing the envelope to see how far he could go in trolling the ignorant and they still believe him.

 

zizec has never said anything i found to be interesting enough for me to get past his most unfortunate speech impediments and behavioural tics.

 

prefer the dry but collected chomsky delivery any day, not that the three deserve to exist in the same statement.

  On 10/26/2013 at 12:22 PM, skibby said:

see how far he could go in trolling the ignorant and they still believe him.

it's not an act like Ali G or Chris Morris, he's a genuine drug addict who acts like a drug addict, wandering from movie to tv to radio to whatever medium. there is no talent there. it's not his fault. there is a mass delusion and he makes money from it. who would refuse free money for nothing?

 

there was a chris morris joke where he asked homeless people to add a commentary track on his dvd? this time they asked a drug addict called russell brand? hhaahaha

Hmm... re Zizek with him you have to work to separate the wheat from the chaff, but he's working on developing the possibilities of structural Marxism by turning away from Spinoza and towards (his very particular) Hegel. That's a very counterintuitive move if you look at the course of Althusser's thought and his disciples, so you can say Zizek is a bold and original philosopher, and one who offers powerful tools to face the situation, despite how unfocused his books are. His public role, making concepts such as "terror" and "communism" acceptable on some quarters again, is also important. I like how little postmodern he is in his frankness and his plain Jacobinism. On the other hand when it comes to politics Chomsky is a theoretical lightweight if there ever was one, and I'd rather consider him as a linguist. He's still on the right side of things, though, and again I guess he plays a positive public role.

  On 10/26/2013 at 10:13 AM, goDel said:

chen, i would almost write a transcript for you. almost.

 

but would you read it though?

 

I would. Give me something to read - i can't stand sitting through interviews, so it has to be something really interesting for me to watch it. Based on the comments here, this doesn't sound really interesting, just more platitudes.

  On 10/26/2013 at 12:57 PM, chunky said:

 

  On 10/26/2013 at 12:22 PM, skibby said:

see how far he could go in trolling the ignorant and they still believe him.

it's not an act like Ali G or Chris Morris, he's a genuine drug addict who acts like a drug addict, wandering from movie to tv to radio to whatever medium. there is no talent there. it's not his fault. there is a mass delusion and he makes money from it. who would refuse free money for nothing?

 

there was a chris morris joke where he asked homeless people to add a commentary track on his dvd? this time they asked a drug addict called russell brand? hhaahaha

 

 

 

He's not a drug addict.

 

But even if he was, it wouldn't change the merit of his words one bit. To harp on the old cliche: if someone says "2 + 2 = 4" then there is no point delving into the character of the person. Either the statement is true or it's not.

 

 

 

And the fact that you're after this fellow's character is like

...well, it's like trying to discredit him by bringing up his ethnic background *wink wink*