on constant re-Branding

In response to an article on Russell Brand's latest trivialities on the arrogantly titled "things that matter"


Dear editor, thanks for your response.

Your personal infatuation with Brand (apparently for the superficial ideology you both share) is highly relevant, not only because your opening paragraph repeats it over and over again in a number of ways, but also because it is obviously the basis of the entire article, rather than think critically of Brand yourself, or engage critically with criticism against him, you attempt to suggest there is a conspiracy to try and silence him ie that line “they are told to from above”…hence the allusion to the rest of the article being ‘bleating’ nonsense.

You are seriously misguided, most people with radical views aren’t on TV or constantly in the media in the first place, they are also not addicted to adoration or the kind of wife swapping Brand indulges in which get’s media attention these days, any publicity is good publicity, have you heard this maxim of marketing gurus?
His role serves at least two obvious purposes, one; he provides an extremely easy target for conservative establishment reactionaries to dismiss, any talk of revolution or popular anti-capitalist sentiment as poorly thought out utopian drivel.

Two; he obscures a very genuine lack of participation by the majority of people in the cultural narrative by
providing a safe form of rebellion they can easily appropriate from television and mass media, reinforcing the very forms of alienation he apparently rails against, encouraging the negation of more significant human thoughts and lives than his own.

Kind Regards

.....

Hi Ersatz ,
I would suggest you re-read what you read I actually say “They are all bringing down Brand not because they are told to from “high above” .The word NOT is an important aspect of that point. There is NOT a conspiracy against him, rather it just the predicable process of how certain ideas get shut down and left out of public debate. I wonder seeing as you got that point wrong is the rest of your conclusions incorrect as well?
I have in fact engaged with your criticism, as you original post accused me of “Brand being my Guru” which I respond to that criticisms and explained in detail how it wasn’t about “Brand” himself rather the way certain ideas get dismissed with in the liberal press. You seem to be doing the very thing you accusing me of doing, which is not responding to the criticism of the criticism, it seems your just on rant independent of the points I raise.
It’s all well and good what you’re saying; Brand just isn’t hard-core enough for you it seems .Yet what do you think he should be doing? How could he be doing what he is doing any better? What is it exactly about yourself that elevates you to make such harsh judgments? What I see is he is doing his best for where he is at and the place he has got to in his life? What more can anyone do? If that’s just not good enough for you, then fair enough but there is no need to go around all self-righteous and spouting contempt for anyone that doesn’t adhere to your high standard of radicalism.
Thanks
EF

.....

Apologies, apparently you did ‘say’ “it is not a conspiracy” however still obviously meaning that actually it is a conspiracy.

How can anybody derive anything other than the accusation of a hidden agenda to stringently rid the media of anything you personally regard as revolutionary, from this: “it just the predicable process of how certain ideas get shut down and left out of public debate”, how does that happen if not by a coordinated, combined effort that you can only vaguely allude to?

I never accused you of anything, i just offered you my perspective, that there’s an obvious case of Brand fetishism in your article, I assume you want feedback, despite apparently treating everybody who disagrees with him in the Mainstream as part of a coordinated attempt to “shut him down”.

“certain ideas get dismissed with in the liberal press” so is it “public debate” or the “liberal press” you’re talking about here, they’re not the same thing, public debate occurs in the House of commons, it occurs in councils, meetings, on the internet and on the streets everyday, it’s know nothing celebrities being thrust into the media spotlight (public debate?) given book deals and so on that discourages public debates, or sadly define the parameters along increasingly inane, mystified, unimportant and insignificant lines.

I’d rather hear from people living in the poverty Brand pays lip service to, speaking about their situation themselves instead of another celebrity blabbering about all these utopian solutions, it’s nothing to do with how “radical” or otherwise he is, I don’t care what he or other celebrities are doing and don’t understand why the masses of desperate people who see in his sloganizing and cheaply spoken idealism some form of solution for all their problems (implicitly: not having to think about them at all) seem to.

He’s basically glamorizing and popularizing an ugly form of politics and discourse, where lot’s of words devoid of content are thrown around in order to appeal to people’s sentiments and emotions, he’s an ideologue.

You’ve clearly also got an inferiority complex judging by the way you get uptight over people expressing their opinions openly and honestly.

Kind Regards