Gilly wrote: Another important point to note is that in the unlikely event that a tramp went on Newsnight and complained about the status quo, people would say "of course you disagree with 'the system', you're a vagrant". You really can't win either way. I remember being on the DIF and people having a go at me and implying that I wasn't allowed an opinion on something because I'm middle-class. Let's leave aside the fact that I don't come from that sort of background at all, this also implies that because I can read and write a bit, I can't possibly be working-class.

There are so many hang-ups about money, it's unbelievable. We all know that in the existing system pretty much everyone has to do things that they don't want to do in order to survive. If you don't do them, you're lazy, layabout, dole bludging scum. If you do them and you're successful then everything you say is tainted because you're not poor.

Cousin_Frothy wrote: I'm not, in all honesty, that interested in what he had to say because anyone with half a brain cell has long since concluded that the way the world is run economically is fundamentally corrupt. Many people seemingly don't have half a brain cell, and don't have any appetite for social change whatsoever. I don't particularly agree with his solutions, and there are important parts of the puzzle that he appears not to have much awareness of, but overall I don't expect any social change anyway, because this has to be absolutely demanded in order for it to occur, and I don't see any appetite for this. But the only way it might change is if more people are exposed to a little bit of reality on a more regular basis, and if their core values are essentially challenged. This still usually does absolutely no good whatsoever, but it can't do any harm to have the notion that the existing political and economic systems are fundamentally elitist being communicated in the mainstream.

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Has he fucked your girlfriend?

"some sort of communist ideology"

1) Unless you explain where you gathered that from, how could we discuss it. I am confident you don't expect mambers here to accept that interpretation without making a case for it.

2) Considering how wide the definition of communism and socialism have become on the internet, perhaps a definition would help prevent confusion.

Gilly wrote:
I ain't jealous of that talent less twat , he's full of shit and i honestly I don't care what valid points he brings up, another wanker calling for a revolution .And where will he be on the front lines doubt it , all talk and lots of bling

What it comes down to people need someone to follow, someone to be there precious leader, A messiah of sorts

Because, of course, saying "Wow! Didn't that guy say something I agree with!" means that one is worshipping that person and totally oblivious to any faults they may have or shortcomings in their position.

Except you. Nothing fools you.

Clever you.

Henrik Palmgren is a cunt

mikey mikey wrote:
You're fucking insane mate

mikey mikey wrote:
Point proven

Black Cloud wrote:
you talking about other posters' mental health

Henrik Palmgren interviews David Icke....... two loonies interviewing each others , too see whose more fucking looney

Black Cloud wrote:
Here is Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Radio (wingut favourite)



More DIF style panic and fear mongering about socialism and a bit of FOX News style bashing any critics of capitalism

If you're not jealous of his wealth, why bring it up when it's not relevant?

I don't need a Messiah - I'm sure most of us don't. But I can respect people who stick their necks out to talk against the regime. There should be lots more doing it. Better than tucking away their millions and showing no sign of giving a fuck about the masses who are in dire straits like the vast majority of 'celebs' do, wouldn't you say? Still, the kind of lambasting Brand's got from every direction for speaking up is a fairly good deterrent against others doing similar I suppose.

For what it's worth, he was there at the '09 G20 Summit demmo's. That was kind of a front line.

mikey mikey wrote:

I've tried to start this clip at 23mis 16 secs for your questions, however it won't do it, so you'll need to move it along to that point for my answer, to why I mentioned communism in reference to Brand.



Since Marx's death in 1883, various groups around the world have appealed to Marxism as the theoretical basis for their politics and policies, which have often proved to be dramatically different and conflicting.[citation needed] One of the first major political splits occurred between the advocates of 'reformism', who argued that the transition to socialism could occur within existing bourgeois parliamentarian frameworks, and communists, who argued that the transition to a socialist society required a revolution and the dissolution of the capitalist state. The 'reformist' tendency, later known as social democracy, came to be dominant in most of the parties affiliated to the Second International and these parties supported their own governments in the First World War.[citation needed] This issue caused the communists to break away, forming their own parties which became members of the Third International.[citation needed]

The following countries had governments at some point in the 20th century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism:[38] Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Grenada, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam. In addition, out of twenty eight Indian states, three state viz. Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal have had Marxist governments, but change occurred through electoral processes. Some of these governments such as in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Moldova and India have been democratic in nature and maintained regular multiparty elections.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Revolution...ism.2C_and_communism

Btw I'm not going to get into a debate about communism.

oioioi wrote:


I'm not going to discuss my girlfriends sex life with you, I don't want to give you free wanking material, though you do seem like a nice enough chap!

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
I have no such issue...

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I'm not sure that the people who understand Brands comments would be unaware of them, this really means one of two things
1) He's preaching/addressing issues to to the converted.
2) He's attempting to engage the unconverted with rhetoric that is already 'out there', unfortunately for Brand the unconverted generally think that's he's 'having a laugh'.
So either way he's only achieving popularity for what we know to be repackaged with wit in his 'comedy show'.
or what 'we' don't know, nor care about, in general the mass population (imo) don't care about the thoughts of Ghandi or Che, they care about ''Big brothers little brother'' or Xfactor, or who is shagging Katy Perry, people with intellect that are likely to engage in social-political thought or 'consciousness' would not need Brand to enlighten them, the only thing he is bringing to the illuminating light is wit.
What you'll likey hear from the mass that are thought to be unenlightened to such matters is ''Well I liked him on Big Brother, but I'm not listening to that boring rant''
Brand is not even scratching the surface when attempting to engage with those who are using the present paradigm of 'our' cultural thought, he knows it, you know it, I know it, it's easy to go on about how the system is corrupt and failing, he has no answers, merely 'revolution'.
Surely everyone knows (that thinks about the country at all) that banksters and politicians are not trustworthy, the answer to that might be for everyone in unison to take their money out of the bank and to stop paying their mortgages, and to never vote.
That's not going to happen, so what we have is Brand projecting his communist fantasy into his 'Comedy show' and the BBC are propping him up as they're likely hoping that this 'controversy' will provide them with cover now that the war on Syria has pittered off to some degree, NSA stories are still emerging and 'Yewtree' is still popping up.

Cousin_Frothy wrote: Thanks for that but I have to say that to be influenced or informed by Marx's work does not make one a "Marxist" in the modern political sense and certainly does not necessarily mean that one is a communist. Marx is more than the father of Socialism btw.
I hoped you listened as far as 24:50 "taking care of the most vulnerable..to me that is not Socialism that is Christian that is spiritual".
Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Well that is a shame because it would have been more interesting to me than a couple of paragraphs from Wikipedia. But in lieu of our own thoughts and words on the matter, perhaps this, from your own wiki source, will help shed light on Marx's influence vis-à-vis political Marxism.

mikey mikey wrote:
Nail on the head.

It pleases me to drop all the blather about 'isms' and deal in terms of how to behave with compassion & decency & morality.