Russell Brand versus Robert Webb | World Politics Forum

Russell Brand versus Robert Webb Nov 2, 2013 12:07:09 GMT

Quote

Post by cenydd on Nov 2, 2013 12:07:09 GMT

Many of you (in the UK at least - others may not be so aware of this one) will, I'm sure, have seen 'comedian' Russell Brand's interview on Newsnight, which quickly went viral and ended up with lots of support and 'up the revolution, man' stuff all over social media:

There is also his New Statesman article here:
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

I don't know about anyone else, but for days my facebook account was filled with it - people going on about how all those horrible politicians were so dreadful, and how he's right and we shouldn't be voting and we should be having a revolution to overthrow the system instead, and so on (despite the fact that Brand is quite clearly an idiot who doesn't have any actual ideas). I did my best to respond to them as much as possible to point out the obvious problems with what he was suggesting, of course, but the volume was overwhelming. So many people seemed to believe that he had got one over Paxman somehow in the interview, and had expressed himself really well - I found it unbelievable since, apart from the fact that his ideas were complete nonsense, he came over to me in the interview as a complete and utter twat who had learned a few big words (that he didn't quite understand) and had failed utterly to think through what he was saying, and I thought Paxman did very well in treating his idiocy with the level of incredulity that it fully deserved (in his usual inimitable style!).

What hasn't been quite so widely circulated (because it doesn't appeal to those same people) is fellow comedian Robert Webb's superb response in the New Statesman. Although I disagree with his choice of political party, of course, the broad thrust of what he says is very well put (and considerably more intelligent than anything that Brand had to say). In particular, this paragraph pretty much sums up the problem for me:

I understand your ache for the luminous, for a connection beyond yourself. Russell, we all feel like that. Some find it in music or literature, some in the wonders of science and others in religion. But it isn’t available any more in revolution. We tried that again and again, and we know that it ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder. In brief, and I say this with the greatest respect, please read some *love*ing Orwell.

www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/russell-choosing-vote-most-british-kind-revolution-there

So does anybody think that Brand was right?

Russell Brand versus Robert Webb Nov 2, 2013 14:16:40 GMT

Quote

Post by ShivaTD on Nov 2, 2013 14:16:40 GMT

I watched the Russell Brand interview a while back and considered posting it at that time. While it specifically relates to British politics and government it also applicable to American politics as well.

To paraphrase why he doesn't vote it was basically, "We have two choices and both of them are wrong."

The flaw in his argument is that change has to occur outside of government as opposed to inside of government because the problem is fundamentally the same in both cases. The fundamental problem is that most people are basically political idiots. It doesn't matter if the people are directly in control or if they elect people to representing them the fact that most people are political idiots remains the fundamental problem.

Even when we address many that attempt to be informed they are often misinformed and misdirected by those they listen to. The "leaders" typically have political agendas that override actual thinking and they propagate the agenda over the facts.

In the US the Democrats and Republicans are the two primary parties that control virtually all politics and their agendas over-ride the facts in many cases. Both are "the Problem" and their extremist elements are the "worst part of the problem" in America. Neither promote what is best for America but instead they promote their agendas and honesty and integrity are sorely lacking. The more extreme their position the less likely their political propaganda has anything to do with reality. They promote half-truths that ignore the problems and instead focus on symptom of the problems.

Years ago I gave up on both and switched to the minority Libertarian Party that has virtually no political control in the United States because it had the best "political philosophy" but even the Libertarian Party fails when it comes to many specific agenda issues.

The Libertarian Party fails in their understanding of Property Rights that were based upon the Monarchy rule in Europe as opposed to the Inalienable Rights of the Person for example. Not one square foot of land that was "titled" but our government. The government doesn't have a Right of Property to land and cannot logically grant title to a person. That was based upon the a Monarchy where the King owned everything, including the people, and was never based upon the Right of Property of the Person. A person cannot literally own land or natural resources because land and natural resources are not created by the labor of the person. I could go into numerous other examples but won't.

Instead I'd point out that not one in one hundred people I've talked with understands Inalienable Rights and yet the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person was the foundation for government in the United States. How can people be expected to vote for representatives in government when they don't even understand the foundation for the government?

The problem isn't the government, it's the people, and Russell Brand believes in the people that are the real problem.

How do we fix the problem? Education but neither of the major two controlling political parties really want the people to be politically educated because they would lose control if that were to happen. Their power is exclusively based upon the willful ignorance of their followers.