Why Russell Brand should not be believed


Russell Brand has turned sloppy estuary English into an art form.

Under his supervision, dropping Ts and abbreviating – sorry, perhaps that should be “abbrevia’ing” – ideas have become a new medium in which today’s cosmo-hipster-naughtie generation communica’es.

I’s no longer any good to simply revolt – we must “revol’.”

And similarly it’s no longer any good to debate, we must not even deba’e, we must simply state a fundamental law of human society – that revolutions are always a good thing – and leave our wiser, more sensible, more intelligent elders to thrash out the details.

Brand’s call for a “socialist utopian revolution” is nothing more than a lazy, lackadaisical attempt to keep this wave on which he has been riding for a few years now from breaking.

He is eloquent and articulate and he has become, in recent newspaper articles and appearances as a TV pundit, the mouthpiece for a beleaguered, weary generation tired of being lied to and neglected by a political class that favors cronyism, corporatism and capitalism.

And that says a terrible, woeful thing about the generation coming up in Brand’s shadow.

If Brand’s empty, lazy utterances – they should not be called arguments – are so convincing to this crowd, it suggests this crowd is in trouble.

No one should be convinced by Brand, and if you are you are allowing yourself to be convinced purely by presentation.

Brand is a showman, and an orator, and a stylist and a performer. He is not an intellectual and is certainly not a man we should be looking to for political or social reform.

I have been glad to see a mini backlash in the wake of his Paxman performance.

It’s about time we stopped valuing gloss over content, something Brand’s own vocalizations suggest he agrees with.

%d bloggers like this: