Russell Brand - Moving Right

[Pogue Mahone]

What's the caf consensus on this bloke?

Is he just a pretentious, greasy-haired blow-hard who will do anything to stay in the spotlight?

Or an articulate and passionate advocate for the disenfranchised who is embracing new media to get his revolutionary message across to the powers that be? (Park Life)

 

[Eboue]

Early contender for worst thread title of the decade.

 

[Silva]

Trews?

 

[Archie Leach]

I quite liked him before he went political. He's an idiot though, the Guardian did a piece on him recently where the the blatant stupidity of him and his supporters came to the forefront. I guess his hearts in the right place.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Trews?

His youtube channel. I think it's supposed to be derived from "true news", where he holds forth on various current affairs topics that he doesn't think the mainstream media are covering properly.

It's strangely entertaining. I quite like the fact he's willing to laugh at himself and he does make some valid points. Talks a whole lot of bollox too though. I think his heart is in the right place but he comes across a bit like a student who gets into politics without really understanding it properly, then never grows up.

 

[Pexbo]

He talks a lot of theoretical sense. Idealistic bollocks that rely on the false assumption that the human race isn't a greedy, flawed collection of power hungry wankers.


Take the "city banker" and their bonuses situation. Yesit's shit, but at the same time, that's what it costs to keep the best ones working for our banks. The worse ones that would do ir for cheaper would cost a lot more in the long run.

Then when it comes to war, it's easy for everyone to get idealistic about things but the fact is that the west is built on war. Would people be so idealistic if they knew the situation we would be in if there wasn't war. There's a lot of "white lies" when it comes to war. Montrosities that turn your stomach and make your blood run cold, horrible decisions that people have to make which act in our favour and keep the world running as it does.

I think it's easy to criticise when you're not in a position of power and your idealistic opinions aren't played out in real time and criticised.

Edit - I should also add that this is coming from someone that actually likes and somewhat respects him.

 

[Eboue]

How about:

Bloviating Brand - Bonkers, Blowhard or Blue Collar Brando?

 

[Brown Toothpick]

He comes across as a nice bloke who is trying to do good in this world. He definitely talks lots of shit, but the fact that he can be earning millions doing crap movies instead of making youtube videos is highly regarded by me. People mostly hate him because of his drug past, looks, movies, and comedy.

 

[evra]

I like him, he is a genuinely funny guy and is pretty quick off the cuff. However, he barely has a surface knowledge of the issues, subjects and institutions he talks about. I remember on his radio show he admitted that he didn't really read whole novels, only the Cliff's Notes. I suspect that's true when it comes to understanding complex economic arguments, he either isn't capable or doesn't have the time. In either case he should refrain from polluting the atmosphere with his ill-informed opinions.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Normally I find him quite a bit annoying but today am completely on his side given the way The Sun have gone after him.

 

[Dante]

Early contender for worst thread title of the decade.

Early contender for 'worst maths in a post' of the year.

I like Brand. He's funny and he actually cares about people. His understanding of the world may be superficial, but sometimes you need idealists to balance out the pragmatists.

 

[Rado_N]

His youtube channel. I think it's supposed to be derived from "true news", where he holds forth on various current affairs topics that he doesn't think the mainstream media are covering properly.

It's strangely entertaining. I quite like the fact he's willing to laugh at himself and he does make some valid points. Talks a whole lot of bollox too though. I think his heart is in the right place but he comes across a bit like a student who gets into politics without really understanding it properly, then never grows up.

That's a perfect description of him.

 

[Eboue]

Early contender for 'worst maths in a post' of the year.

I like Brand. He's funny and he actually cares about people. His understanding of the world may be superficial, but sometimes you need idealists to balance out the pragmatists.

How about Branded Man: Russellstiltskin Pontificates Pompously

 

[Dante]

Even better:

'Brand spanking news: Russel-ing and bustling, hustling for social justice-ling?'

 

[Eboue]

Good effort. What about "Russell Brand disappeared through the smoke rings of his mind and up his own ass hole and now he is selling a book". Or is that too long?

 

[SteveJ]

At least The Sun didn't put 'Roo' in their headline for once.

 

[Zarlak]

Early contender for 'worst maths in a post' of the year.

I like Brand. He's funny and he actually cares about people. His understanding of the world may be superficial, but sometimes you need idealists to balance out the pragmatists.

He's not funny, and he doesn't give a shit. He talks the talk, while he goes around practising what he hates, such as being chauffeured around in his Mercedes. Like Pogue says, he just comes across as a student that's swallowed a thesaurus.

 

[Eboue]

At least The Sun didn't put 'Roo' in their headline for once.

They will rue the day...

 

[SteveJ]

 

[KiD MoYeS]

I bet stupid people believe he's smart, and isn't that his demographic?

 

[marukomu]

Any relation to Jo Brand? I don't really know this guy.

 

[Raoul]

He's like someone from the 60s who got involuntarily teleported into the present and is trying to make sense of it all.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

He's not funny, and he doesn't give a shit. He talks the talk, while he goes around practising what he hates, such as being chauffeured around in his Mercedes. Like Pogue says, he just comes across as a student that's swallowed a thesaurus.

To be fair to him, he's quite honest about his own hypocrisy in all of this. That - plus the way he combines a monstrous ego with an ability to laugh at himself - makes him quite hard to dislike.

For example, there was a bit of a fuss yesterday when he protested about the a housing estate being gentrified with the original residents priced out of their homes and a journalist pointed out that he was partly responsible for the gentrification himself, as he'd moved into a fancy pad in the area. He got very put out and called the journo "snide". He subsequently posted a vlog on his Trews channel about the incident and was acutely aware that he came across as a bit of an eejit.

 

[Mockney]

He's an odd one. He's certainly got far more exposure than he deserves, but I also don't like the backlash against him.

It's reductive to call him an idiot. He's clearly not an idiot. He's a bright bloke, he just isn't as smart as his supporters think he is. Is he more of an idiot than Farage, or any number of blowhard career politicians? I've also seen loads of people I know dismiss him as an idiot who patently know and care far less about politics than him. Seemingly as an easy way to avoid getting into any political conversations. I'd certainly rather people like him were trying as oposed to not.

But yeah, he's simplistic, and at base his message is a wishy washy spiritual one that has little practicality (and I certainly don't want a spiritual revolution any time soon!) He's like a quasi political squirrel ball whizzing around in all dircetions without a real purpose, but I think his heart is in the right place. And I don't think it's a bad thing to have someone raising many of the things he's raising in such a high profie. If only just to get people thinking about them. Or to encourage other people to do the same. With the exception of the voting thing, obviously, which is genuinely naive and dangerous.

I do think much of the media backlash against his foray into politics is silly, and as he says "snide". Why shouldn't he get involved because he's a celebrity/comedian? Isn't one of the main problems of modern day apathy that Westminster is bloated with too many of the same kind of establishment people? Why should the way he speaks and the jovial way he communicates be of any issue? He's connecting with the young, where the vague, pompous obfuscating talk of career politicians isn't. So what if he has a big house? It's not tax funded. Should the rich have no opinion on social justice? So what if his anti-Capitalist book was sold through a capitalist system? Should he have scribbled it on walls instead? Can you walk into a book shop and demand to be given Das Kapital for free?

A lot of that kind of thing is precisely the type of elitism he's drawing attention to. And isn't really being levelled at anyone else. (Who asked David Cameron how much his house cost, for example? I'll bet it was more than Brand's, and he's actually got power over people.) So beyond the voting fiasco, I don't see too much of a problem with him. He's not going to get elected into office any time soon, and a lot of the attacks on him seemed particularly ad hom.

His cult of personality should definitely be kept in check, but he shouldn't be dismissed wholesale either. The only people that would benefit from that are the status quo.

He's like someone from the 60s who got involuntarily teleported into the present and is trying to make sense of it all.

I read a thing by Danny Baker recently which made the interesting point that he's a modern day John Lennon figure. Not a political heavyweight by any means, merely a sort of totem to keep idealism alive. And in fairness to Brand, he's a far better spokesman than Lennon. Who's bafflingly thought of as some revolutionary peacenik despite being a much bigger hypocrite and staying in bed all day.

 

[Hectic]

His youtube channel. I think it's supposed to be derived from "true news", where he holds forth on various current affairs topics that he doesn't think the mainstream media are covering properly.

It's strangely entertaining. I quite like the fact he's willing to laugh at himself and he does make some valid points. Talks a whole lot of bollox too though. I think his heart is in the right place but he comes across a bit like a student who gets into politics without really understanding it properly, then never grows up.

Pretty much it, he means well but is very naive.

 

[Archie Leach]

That's actually quite a rousing defence, Mockney. Better than the wanker who said he was like Jesus, Ghandi and Guevara all in one, but better.

 

[Cheesy]

I think a lot of the reaction at first came about because people were surprised that someone like him was actually quite into politics and quite informed. I found him interesting at first, but I think he's slowly regressing into one of those George Galloway type left-wing figures who's got a band of extremely loyal supporters that will claim the media is trying to smother him whenever he airs his views.

Mockney's post was very good though, and kind of made me re-think some of my views on the guy. I'll maintain that there's some level of hypocrisy in him though, even if his campaigning is admirable. I really didn't like the way he tried to just put down that journalist though. The reporter was perfectly entitled in asking his question: if you've got a rich man campaigning for poorer, working class people, you're naturally going to ask about the hypocrisy angle and see what you get out of it. Brand completely straying off of it and kind of claiming it's an agenda against him put me off him.

Quite entertaining though, and more interesting to listen to than some out there. I think a lot of his views seem to be fairly idealistic, but probably aren't that practical.

 

[Kaos]

I was never really a fan of his until he started his amusing tirade against Sean Hannity and Fox News.

I don't buy into his spiritual ramblings but I think his hearts in the right place, and I'm also livid with how he's being depicted in the media. Who cares about his wealth anyway.

 

[Mockney]

I think a lot of the reaction at first came about because people were surprised that someone like him was actually quite into politics and quite informed. I found him interesting at first, but I think he's slowly regressing into one of those George Galloway type left-wing figures who's got a band of extremely loyal supporters that will claim the media is trying to smother him whenever he airs his views.

I definitely agree. His supporters are frequently annoying. Which is why the voting thing is hard to get past. It's given a whole lot of people who wouldn't have voted anyway a false moral high ground from which to do so. It's the most dangerous thing he's done.

I really didn't like the way he tried to just put down that journalist though. The reporter was perfectly entitled in asking his question: if you've got a rich man campaigning for poorer, working class people, you're naturally going to ask about the hypocrisy angle and see what you get out of it. Brand completely straying off of it and kind of claiming it's an agenda against him put me off him.

He was a prick to that reporter. No bones about it. But I can also see his side of it. He was there to support a movement, and with limited questions to ask, using one to probe into his personal (completely legally gained) wealth was definitely a "headline bait" question rather than a serious one. The idea that a "rich man campaigning for poorer, woring class people" should be an issue doesn't wash with me either. That's exactly what Tony Benn was and no one gave him any stick. Che Guevara was a rich kid. Karl Marx was the son of a lawyer. And more to the point, Brand very patently IS a working class person. Just one's who's done very well. No one gives Alan Sugar shit when he bangs on about being working class every 20 minutes from his ivory throne. So though I certainly think he came across poorly there, and there's nothing inherently wrong with asking these questions in the approprate settings, I can't help but feel he's getting special treatment.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think a lot of the reaction at first came about because people were surprised that someone like him was actually quite into politics and quite informed. I found him interesting at first, but I think he's slowly regressing into one of those George Galloway type left-wing figures who's got a band of extremely loyal supporters that will claim the media is trying to smother him whenever he airs his views.

Mockney's post was very good though, and kind of made me re-think some of my views on the guy. I'll maintain that there's some level of hypocrisy in him though, even if his campaigning is admirable. I really didn't like the way he tried to just put down that journalist though. The reporter was perfectly entitled in asking his question: if you've got a rich man campaigning for poorer, working class people, you're naturally going to ask about the hypocrisy angle and see what you get out of it. Brand completely straying off of it and kind of claiming it's an agenda against him put me off him.

Quite entertaining though, and more interesting to listen to than some out there. I think a lot of his views seem to be fairly idealistic, but probably aren't that practical.

Have a look at the vid I posted above. He's a lot more reasonable about what happened once he'd cooled down a bit.

 

[Cheesy]

I definitely agree. His supporters are frequently annoying. Which is why the voting thing is hard to get past. It's given a whole lot of people who wouldn't have voted anyway a false moral high ground from which to do so. It's the most dangerous thing he's done.

He was a prick to that reporter. No bones about it. But I can also see his side of it. He was there to support a movement, and with limited questions to ask, using one to probe into his personal (completely legally gained) wealth was definitely a "headline bait" question rather than a serious one. The idea that a "rich man campaigning for poorer, woring class people" should be an issue doesn't wash with me either. That's exactly what Tony Benn was and no one gave him any stick. Che Guevara was a rich kid. Karl Marx was the son of a lawyer. And more to the point, Brand very patently IS a working class person. Just one's who's done very well. No one gives Alan Sugar shit when he bangs on about being working class every 20 minutes from his ivory throne. So though I certainly think he came across poorly there, and there's nothing inherently wrong with asking these questions in the approprate settings, I can't help but feel he's getting special treatment.

Fair points actually. I think part of his whole idealistic revolution thing is why he gets a lot of this special treatment from the media. They've clocked onto the fact that he's extremely quotable now, and I imagine it's something that they'll continue to push, although it'll obviously be some more than others.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

He was a prick to that reporter. No bones about it. But I can also see his side of it. He was there to support a movement, and with one question to ask, using it to probe into his personal (completely legally gained) wealth was definitely a "headline bait" question rather than a serious one. The idea that a "rich man campaigning for poorer, woring class people" should be an issue doesn't wash with me either. That's exactly what Tony Benn was and no one gave him any stick. And more to the point, Brand very patently IS a working class person. Just one's who's done very well. No one gives Alan Sugar shit when he bangs on about being working class every 20 minutes. And again, he's much richer than Brand. So though I certainly think he came across poorly there, and there's nothing inherently wrong with asking these questions in the approprate settings, I can't help but feel he's getting special treatment.

Typically egocentric response (including obligatory photo of him looking all handsome and earnest) but I think he's making a fair point. It's not as though he only started protesting once he was famous and wealthy. Didn't he once get arrested at the poll tax protests, long before he was a household name?

 

[Eboue]

I find him obnoxious and douchy to the extreme. There are lots of posters on here smarter and funnier than he is. I'd rather hear about important issues from subject matter experts or even well read random people on the internet than a celebrity with a massive ego. I'm not impressed that he is more engaged than the Kardashians. Celebrities who are slightly more educated and thoughtful than their peers don't impress me. Russell Brand's rants are the youtube equivalent of Sean Penn writing about Hugo Chavez.

 

[Raoul]

The Sean Hannity / Brand shenanigans on Fox News were hilarious.

 

[Cheesy]

Have a look at the vid I posted above. He's a lot more reasonable about what happened once he'd cooled down a bit.

Some decent points from him. I can see the argument there that he is at least helping out these people, which is a good thing of him to do. He still comes across as kind of insufferable at times, but I can kind of agree with him on some issues to a certain extent.

I still think he was a bit out of line with that journalist. I know he was obviously wearing his heart on his sleeve and he openly admits that, but it'd have made more sense for him to say that, yeah, he is rich, but he was there helping out and he's happy to admit that. It was the way he suddenly went all defensive, called the guy a snide and just started playing the "media is against us" card right away which irritated me.

 

[LeChuck]

I actually like him a lot now and he's endeared himself to me, (as I hate 99% of celebrities). Especially after the voicemail saga, and his past, it's refreshing to see a guy who has it all trying to level the playing field.

Yes, he does come across a little idealistic, and he won't be taken seriously due to his past, but he's doing a lot more out there than other people. Bob Geldof and Bono could learn a thing or two from him, imo.

He is an articulate, intelligent man, and he does have substance to his views. Like I said, they are idealistic, but there is something there.

The incident with Sean Hannity was probably what made me start liking him.

 

[Zarlak]

To be fair to him, he's quite honest about his own hypocrisy in all of this. That - plus the way he combines a monstrous ego with an ability to laugh at himself - makes him quite hard to dislike.

For example, there was a bit of a fuss yesterday when he protested about the a housing estate being gentrified with the original residents priced out of their homes and a journalist pointed out that he was partly responsible for the gentrification himself, as he'd moved into a fancy pad in the area. He got very put out and called the journo "snide". He subsequently posted a vlog on his Trews channel about the incident and was acutely aware that he came across as a bit of an eejit.

Having a monstrous ego while admitting his own hypocrisy makes me hate him even more. Admitting you're a hypocrite doesn't mean it's right. Plus I just really dislike him, which is all the more annoying when he's pretending to be one of us or fighting for our cause until the cameras switched off.

 

[Mockney]

Why is he a hypocrite, if you don't mind me asking? Should the rich only care about the rich, and only the poor care about the poor? Do you want him to live in a potatoe sack to make what he's saying legitimate? Was Tony Benn (son of a Lord) a hypocrite? Was Karl Marx (son of a lawyer) a hypocrite? Was Che Guevara (son of a well off intellectual who played rugby and had the funds to swan off on a motorcycle holiday for months) a hypocrite? Neither Lenin nor Trotsky were poor. Precisely how poor do you have to be to give a shit?

 

[stepic]

we need more people like him imo.

 

[The Mitcher]

He talks but cannot walk the walk, honestly I find most of what he says to be idealistic drivel. He just sounds like he's swallowed a thesaurus, throwing words out in the air trying to look articulate, intelligent and intellectual. He's like a less posh Will Self, in the end the endless long words and pontificating make him look pretentious and not interesting to listen to in my opinion. The fact he admits he's a hypocrite does not make it right, I do think he is a champagne socialist as others say, yet I can't say he's not being dishonest. He's just saying stupid things and believes he can create social change...yet while being apathetic to the poltical system?

Its like what Noel Gallagher said, "he can't even overthrow a table, let alone the government".