Champagne Socialism and Cold Paella

My other half and I rarely argue. Which is nice. There are, I think, two reasons for this: the first is because – and this is to the extent where it is genuinely creepy – we are more or less the same person. We were considering making our parents meet and deciphering the expressions on their faces to be able to come to the conclusion that there had been some cock-up some 20-odd years ago (I’m really, really sorry about that pun) and that we are in fact siblings. Anyway, that’s all really gross so the second reason is because I think we’ve got to that age now where arguing is simply tiring and we’d rather go ‘dahling, you know what you’re right. You just are. Now please pass me that hummus for my focaccia’.

But there is one subject that genuinely threatens to have one of us sleeping on the sofa. One human being. One ridiculous wardrobe and one beard that really could do with a wash.

No, not Santa. He’s alright.

It’s Russell Twatting Brand.

Now before we go anywhere, I’d like to say that I KNOW I am essentially doing a drunken Macarena over very thin ice here. So just in case my metaphors or general poncy use of the English language get too tedious, I’ll say it now: I’m not a champion for bankers’ rights to astronomical bonuses that they piss up the walls on coke and caviar, I’m not pro-market rigging and I am certainly not ignorant to those suffering in poverty at the expense of those that are apparently manipulating The System (Jesus, I hate that phrase) in their favour. I’m just really, really sick of Russell Brand.

This fervent dislike recently got to the point where I started to hate, and automatically disagree with, everything he was saying. But then I stopped being a menstrual weirdo, the fog clouding my logic parted and I realised that his opinions are generally not really wrong. What is wrong is the idiotic way in which he disseminates them. In fact I’m of the opinion that Mr Brand’s antics are bordering on dangerous, misleading and tyrannical.

A multitude of factors have lead me to this conclusion, not all of which are Brand’s fault. But I am certain that he knows about them and very much capitalises on them. The first is this. MY GENERATION IS FULL OF ABSOLUTE FUCKTARDS. We don’t read past headlines. We don’t use pens and paper. We don’t question things we’re told. We only appreciate image, not substance (for example if ever I put a picture of something with a little depth on Instagram I get NO love. In fact I’m sure I get ‘indirected’ for being a little bit too out of the polaroid-shaped box. But an out-out selfie? Bare love). As a result of this, what we think we know is that The System Is Bad. The Government Is Stealing Our Money. Corporations Are Trying To Kill Us (I legit overheard someone say that in a pub the other day). And don’t even get me started on what we’re meant to think about anybody in a niqab.

Mr Brand has noticed this, and noticed that if he just shouts any one of the above catchphrases with no justifications, explanations or detail he will get applauded and supported and placed on a pedestal. He’s also noticed that if he uses big words, he sounds very official and even when he misuses them, nobody will question him because nobody is well-versed enough to know he’s really, really not making sense.

This all means that our man Russell is essentially leading the blind, and it’s getting a bit scary. On many occasions, it’s been pointed out that he has more Twitter followers than most of the British media put together and therefore a greater outreach. And as nobody enjoys scrutinising any more because That’s Boring and Requires More Time Than Retweeting Something Does, he’s got my generation hanging off of his every word. If he simply made a statement and we all went away and researched the topic, coming to our own conclusions, that wouldn’t be a bad thing. But that’s not what happens. Instead, we just despise this dark mark on civilisation that is The System.

This vicious cycle is exacerbated by the fact that, as I’ve said, Russell NEVER backs up his arguments, leaving barely any room for specific criticism. If you listen to him in interviews, panels, debates or even one of his farfetched documentaries, and I mean really listen, you’ll notice that all he does is go round in circles made out of fancy words and cuddles for the proletariat. This really came to the fore in his recent interview with Evan Davis on Newsnight. On a number of occasions, Evan asked Russell extremely clear and direct questions and instead of doing what any intelligent person serious about the topic at hand would do, Russell very rudely chastises Evan whilst niftily avoiding giving a genuine answer at all and talking right over the top of Evan, barely allowing him a second to get his questions in.

E: [reading from Russell’s Book “Revolution”] let’s talk about specifics. Let’s… no let’s look at this one. In the book, you say “let’s kill General Motors – let’s take it back from its shareholders, scribble out the name and the logo and let’s use its resources for something more valuable”.

R: [points finger at Evan and the camera, shifting about a lot, even placing his hand on Evan’s leg (weird)] now Evan, I hope you’re not going to use this opportunity for you, an Oxford-educated economist, to come on the TV and be rude to me… 

E: [in an almost apologetic tone] no no, I’m not being rude… [inaudible]

R:… for simply trying to suggest that there might be alternative to corporate hegemony. That there might be an alternative to our governments bending over for big corporations.

And there you have it. The trigger words are in, the body language is vivacious but not quite (depending on your point of view) aggressive and, as ever, this holy grail of an alternative is never discussed. This is Brand’s problem. Here we go again:

E: … You’re very good in this book, and you’re going to get a lot of praise… for identifying a lot that people don’t like about society at the moment…

R: … what’s your point Evan, what’s your point mate? Come on, sharpen up mate you’re in big shoes 

E: … It might be that you haven’t had the imagination to think about the problems that the other system has. So I’m trying to get into a detail here

R: so you think I lack imagination, that’s your accusation? What’s the problem with my imagination

E: no no, I want to take an example of something you say… Take General Motors from its shareholders, do you know who owns it? […]

R: … Evan, are you seriously telling me that the corporate world, companies like Monsanto, and Pfizer, are operating on behalf of us, ordinary people? Are you coming on Newsnight, a Great British institution, and saying that corporations like Vodafone, Amazon, Google that don’t pay their taxes… who are aided and assisted by our government, while people fill the squares arrested for possessing tarpaulin… You wanna say that corporates are getting a rough ride?

Buzzwords, anecdotes to spur sympathy, a swift change of topic (by which I mean making statements that could not be more irrelevant to the question he was asked) and a few big names thrown in there and we’ve got the Dummies Guide to Wrapping The Public Around Your Little Finger. And yet to the discerning watcher, it’s quite clear that throughout the whole interview Russell does not give one straight answer but instead continues to use his body language and regurgitation of this fucking thesaurus he seems to have swallowed to make it appear as though poor Evan was taking a thrashing, when all the poor bastard did was go to Oxford. Well Russell, you’ve not fooled me.

In his most recent programme, I managed to wade through the mounds of bullshit to – I think – understand that Russell’s main argument was that drugs should be legalised. It was genuinely painful for me to watch. But I looked at both sides of the situation, and all credit due, there are legitimate statistics that tell us that countries that have legalised drugs only really experience positive effects from this. So that’s fair enough. Legalise weed. I am fully aware that drugs are a huge problem in society, and was shocked by the upsetting footage of my own home city showing scenes around town almost ankle deep in used needles, belts, burned spoons and sodden mattresses.

What shocked me more was Russell leaving these scenes, after having given all the poor drug addicts a cuddle, let us all see him arriving on a bicycle as Joe Bloggs would do and hear that he’d given them a call in rehab or prison to ‘check on them’, in the back of a fucking blacked out shiny saloon with his heavy and driver. Is this some sort of a sick windup? Is this not the epitome of hypocrisy and champagne socialism? I agreed to watch the whole programme through because, by some miracle, all of Brand’s confused ranting might come to a tangible conclusion, and perhaps even some sort of plan of action, by the end of it. Of course it fucking didn’t. He said something ambiguous about The System being an abhorrent entity and that was that. Good stuff.

And Russell really really loves this game of charades. This whole for-the-people, I’m One Of You, bullshit front he puts on. For example. The anti-system Million Mask March held on November 5. Mask. MASK.

MASK, RUSSELL.

Mr Brand did not, of course, wear a mask to the Million Mask March because how on earth would the media be able to spot him and document his avid, altruistic support of this great cause if he did?

And then, yesterday, my hero appeared from nowhere. This man, named as Jo in his open letter to Mr Brand, shares three things with me: a deep-rooted and unconditional love for food, a love of writing long rants whilst attempting to be witty and an apparent dislike of Russell. It’s an amazing read, so I’ll let you carry on; but please note in particular the absolutely fabulous exposure of Russell’s own naughty moments that the RBS worker manages to slip in. Mr Brand wrote a letter back today, naturally swerving those facts and in a very boring fashion banging on about the same shit he always does.

This post is already far too long, so I’ll cut it off here. But I really wanted to get this message across: I implore of my generation to please stop believing something you might read in one dubious and badly-researched article, on any topic, and start thinking for yourselves. Because if we do think about it, in a roundabout way Russell has, by sheer idiocy and transparent branding, become as full of failed rhetoric as the politicians he so hates. Sweeping statements made with no viable alternatives nor real conclusions offered will always be as damning as doing nothing, no matter how pressing the matter nor sincere the will and good faith of the speaker. Especially when the speaker does in fact seem to have questionable motives that could sway us towards thinking that all of his involvement is really just one big publicity stunt. After all, Russell does suffer from that awful condition known as the Messiah Complex…

Again, I’m not in favour of corporations stealing taxpayers’ money, nor the misplacing of public funds (that being said the point of a public buyout is actually to eventually sell off the assets, making a profit for the likes of you and me, but never mind…) and I really would love to see more help given to drug addicts in an attempt to get them back on their feet. That would be lovely. So I’m not really arguing with any… OK, most of Russell’s points any more because – I’ll admit it – society is fucked.

But please, Mr Brand. Stop this façade. Stop capitalising on the laziness of my generation. Stop weirdly sniffing foil covered in heroin on national television. And for the love of pasta, please stop making taxpayers’ food go cold.

PS: Mack, I’m sorry we argued about Russell Brand.

Comments