• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Authoring an eloquent post will justifiably garner several "likes", irrespective as to whether everyone agrees with the stated viewpoint.
I started this thread simply because of the conspiratorial/Fortean angle, with Brand having apparently relaunched {re-Branded?) his initially libertine character as the new conspiracy king.
I do, however, note how he's providing material to offend a wide section of us here.
@escargot has persuasively stated why he makes her flesh creep. Others have described their particular dislike of him.
For me, it's his dangerous and or repugnant views, notably about covid vaccines and for his apparent sympathy for Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine.
We all love a bit of conspiracy (isn't that why we're here?), but when people suffer or die because of it, doesn't the fun stop?
The reasons you mention in your post are in part why some people dislike/loathe Brand.
 
Ah but does Brand believe he is the son of God ...

.... Apparently, judging from this photo he posed for, with a halo-like stained glass window framing his head, he just might!

glassb.png
 
Prompted by this thread, I went and watched one of his YT videos last night. Will be honest, me and Kid 4 often watch conspiracy theorists' videos literally with a bucket of popcorn between us, cackling - so my YT history probably looks like I'm a big fan of such people, when actually I'm a cruel hate watcher.

Brand was going on some politically weird US channels, talking with their hosts - and we don't touch on politics here so I won't actually talk about precisely what it was he was on about. But basically, he was trying to give as much respect and credence to some "out there" channels and interviewers, as he says he would to some more kosher ones. Trying to find middle ground, even. Without going into politics, just broadly speaking, he came across as incredibly naive.

One thing I do admire about him is his extensive... vocabulary. TV is full of people who only know 6 words, or people like Stephen Fry who build up this fake persona of being "intelligent" and somehow better than the rest of us which is built on shaky foundations, in truth, based on a posh accent and a smattering of Latin - Brand struck me as something like maybe the brightest kid in his year at school, gone off piste and somehow awry.

He does seem to be drinking some weird Kool Aid. I'll be honest. It just made me feel sad for him but no animosity. But I'll admit I never disliked him before - just thought he was a bit of a prat, but not an egregious one.
 
Last edited:
Well, with David Icke now having passed his three score years and ten, perhaps the tinfoil hat brigade would like a new messiah a few decades younger to keep bestowing upon them conspiratorial largesse?
I long had a theory about Icke that it was all the 1970s/80s hair perm chemicals somehow affected his brain.
 
TV is full of people who only know 6 words, or people like Stephen Fry who build up this fake persona of being "intelligent" and somehow better than the rest of us which is built on shaky foundations, in truth, based on a posh accent and a smattering of Latin...

Stephen Fry is bright and has subjects on which is pretty knowledgeable (I have his book on poetry—specifically on form and construction—which was not a bestseller), but he's not actually an academic, which some people take him to be. I'm not sure it's fair to claim he poses as one, but he has adopted the air.

I think it was Peter Hitchens who described him harshly as a 'stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is like' (although he may not have come up with it and was perhaps merely quoting it with approval).

Brand is clearly not stupid, but it's all 'native wit'; without the critical experience, he's talked (as much as thought) his way into some silly and inconsistent positions.
 
Stephen Fry is bright and has subjects on which is pretty knowledgeable (I have his book on poetry—specifically on form and construction—which was not a bestseller), but he's not actually an academic, which some people take him to be. I'm not sure it's fair to claim he poses as one, but he has adopted the air.

I think it was Peter Hitchens who described him harshly as a 'stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is like' (although he may not have come up with it and was perhaps merely quoting it with approval).

Brand is clearly not stupid, but it's all 'native wit'; without the critical experience, he's talked (as much as thought) his way into some silly and inconsistent positions.
I'll be honest, I'd agree with Hitchens there (uncharacteristically). Few times I saw bits and pieces of Fry trying to look "erudite", he hasn't said owt I didn't know already, so totally irritated when people think he's something he isn't because I know I'm not particularly brainy and can't see what is so special about his vaunted knowledge...
 
I'll be honest, I'd agree with Hitchens there (uncharacteristically). Few times I saw bits and pieces of Fry trying to look "erudite", he hasn't said owt I didn't know already, so totally irritated when people think he's something he isn't because I know I'm not particularly brainy and can't see what is so special about his vaunted knowledge...
I've just watched Fry's channel 5 programme on dinosaurs (a lot of CGI and speculation, but OK ish) I was surprised when extinctions were mentioned and one expert gave a percentage of species wiped out, Fry's reply was he once thought the great extinctions meant all life was wiped out. Very odd response (unless he meant he thought that when he was five) Life emerged then re emerged five times?
:huh:
 
I also watched a Russel Brand video last night. Apart from his presentation style I liked it. He has an incredibly good vocabulary and he makes his meaning clear. The video was about the World Economic Forum and their long terms plans to incarcerate the human population into high tech cities. (As I've posted before, if any think this just another conspiracy theory, go on the WEF website as it's all on there.)

I doubt I'll be watching any more of Brand's videos.
 
I also watched a Russel Brand video last night. Apart from his presentation style I liked it. He has an incredibly good vocabulary and he makes his meaning clear. The video was about the World Economic Forum and their long terms plans to incarcerate the human population into high tech cities. (As I've posted before, if any think this just another conspiracy theory, go on the WEF website as it's all on there.)

I doubt I'll be watching any more of Brand's videos.
Occasionally, he hits the right note, I guess.
I do see signs that he might be maturing.
 
Great post (#24)@Zeke Newbold.

Personally, I've never been able to get beyond a visceral and long standing dislike of Brand. Even in those instances when the message seems 'on' for me, any actual sincerity seems totally lacking; it all feels like an act. (And I still find it hard to get past Stewart Lee’s description of the Brand/Paxman interview: ‘…like watching a monkey throwing its excrement at a foghorn’.)

A couple of years ago I came across a memorable phrase - used to describe the legendary journalist Seymour Hersh's shift towards professional apologist for Assad and the Syrian regime: 'Twilight aberration'.

Giving Brand the benefit of the doubt, maybe this is his. I suspect it's not that unknown a phase in professional commentators lives – and maybe it’s just hit Brand early. People who wish to create are often told to explore what they know – and I can't help wondering if people who are paranoid about their careers maybe have a tendency to fall back on paranoia as inspiration. And I dare say for those who are accustomed to disseminating opinions, but have run out of ideas with which to reinforce them, the ease with which one can reach in to the bin for a fully prepared, boil in the bag conspiracy - with guaranteed click harvesting potential and no extra work required - is just too tempting.

Brand is becoming just another professional hystericist. He better be good at it, because it's a crowded field.

Stewart Lee on Brand again. Again - I can never look at Russell Brand without thinking 'cartoon pirate'. (I think Richard Herring - Lee's former comedy partner - is more sympathetic to Brand):

I'm not sticking up for Brand, he reminds me of the creepy lollipop man from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, but I'm struggling to meet Stewart Lee on this one .. his observation that Brand dressing up as a cartoon pirate is 'racist' ... who are we supposed to all feel sorry for? .. Long John Silver's non existent ancestors? .. some pretend current vocal minority group I don't know about who now want to be known as sea liberators and not 'pirates' that said aaahh m'hearty, shiver m'timbers etc etc who didn't have a wooden leg or a parrot on their shoulder while drinking rum these days?. Are modern day real pirates hurt by this stereotypical representation? .. to save time, all the answer's are no. I know Lee was only joking, it was just as shit joke.
 
I'll be honest, I'd agree with Hitchens there (uncharacteristically). Few times I saw bits and pieces of Fry trying to look "erudite", he hasn't said owt I didn't know already, so totally irritated when people think he's something he isn't because I know I'm not particularly brainy and can't see what is so special about his vaunted knowledge...

There are issues on which I fundamentally disagree with Fry.

But he is sharp, quick witted, emotionally intelligent and interesting.
 
Stephen Fry is bright and has subjects on which is pretty knowledgeable (I have his book on poetry—specifically on form and construction—which was not a bestseller), but he's not actually an academic, which some people take him to be. I'm not sure it's fair to claim he poses as one, but he has adopted the air.

I think it was Peter Hitchens who described him harshly as a 'stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is like' (although he may not have come up with it and was perhaps merely quoting it with approval).

Brand is clearly not stupid, but it's all 'native wit'; without the critical experience, he's talked (as much as thought) his way into some silly and inconsistent positions.

Fry is undoubtedly erudite and eloquent - 'intelligent' is kind of a different thing; these elements can all be part of the same mix, but they aren't necessarily synonymous.

And Brand - credit where credit's due - is very eloquent. Comedians have to be eloquent - you can't get on a stage and talk at hundreds of people in a way that makes them laugh if you cannot convey ideas in a fluent and persuasive manner. However, the eloquence with which an argument is put forward is not in itself an indicator of that argument's correctness. (One might argue that Hitchens himself can be an example of that.)
 
Last edited:
ChristopherHitchens was a buddy of Fry's though and there are some good talks the two did together about religion.
I don't think Peter Hitchens has time for anyone, to be fair.

Peter Hitchens - who I used to really enjoy, if not agree with very often - has become, essentially, a professional hystericist. To pastiche his (possible) comments on Fry: Hitchens opinions are what a Sunday Mail reader thinks journalism is.

He still has his moments, but I care not one whit what his opinion of others might be.
 
Last edited:
Fry is undoubtedly erudite and eloquent - 'intelligent' is kind of a different thing; these elements can all be part of the same mix, but they aren't necessarily synonymous.

And Brand - credit where credit's due - is very eloquent. Comedians have to be eloquent - you can't get on a stage and talk at hundreds of people in a way that makes them laugh if you cannot convey ideas in a fluent and persuasive manner. However, the eloquence with which an argument is put forward is not in itself an indicator of that argument's correctness. (One might argue that Hitchens himself can be an example of that.)
Yes, nail on head. I can enjoy Brand's verbal gymnastics/diarrhoea even if I disagree with what he says -enjoy to a limited extent. Because now it's kind of sad watching him. Love or loathe him, I don't think he's ever come from a bad place. He's done daft things but haven't we all.

But Fry strikes me as a fake, and no "genius" and he doesn't use words in a way that makes me particularly awe-inspired. He's a try hard who people seem to mistake for someone clever but it comes across (to me, I'm aware this is an unpopular view) just posh boy self indulgence. He's taken in a lot of people and I read a (self indulgent) autobiog years ago where he does indeed seem to suffer from imposter syndrome. Rightly so, though.

Brand - to me - is more relatable in that he's not had that privileged background so it's not yet another plummy accent telling you what to think or flashing their superiority - because I'm so over that.

Brand's losing credibility, since covid. He's now going on about the Great Reset... The Guardian turned against him this week. I can imagine there was a time they loved him. (Worth reading as it sets out pretty clearly the evolution of his philosophy).

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-brand-politics-public-figures-responsibility
 
Last edited:
Thing is celebrities' will do anything to maintain their position, and get enough exposure, celebrities are like plants they need the light and oxygen of publicity to survive as a celerity, we are talking about him, and I am sure many others are, as interest in them starts to fade they start getting even more bizarre and controversial, I give you Laurence Fox and Right Said Fred as two perfect examples (sorry for readers outside of the UK if you don't know them).

Chances are that most people had more or less forgotten about Mr Brand, I doubt this desperate publicity stunt will bring back his career most celebrities' (except if they are very talented) have a very short shelf life and his was up a long time ago
 
Peter Hitchens - who I used to really enjoy, if not agree with very often - has become, essentially, a professional hystericist. To pastiche his (possible) comments on Fry: Hitchens opinions are what Sunday Mail reader thinks journalism is.

He still has his moments, but I care not one whit what his opinion of others might be.
Peter Hitchens is currently arguing on Twitter that the Nazis were left wing and disagreeing with a holocaust professor who's telling him he's wrong
 
Well, he was a heroin addict for a while. That's got to have some effect on a chap.
That's another reason I dislike him, having had close dealings with junkies.
I'd give them lifts, but I'd drive further down the street, pull up and lock anything stealable in the boot before letting them get in.
These days I wouldn't even take that risk.

Not being judgmental here, it's their own business, but I'm long done with'em.
 
Just a reminder that we're not going to be debating the definitions of fascism and communism here simply because one person mentioned tangentially on the thread is currently debating that subject.

Back to how wonderful Russell Brand is.
 
Just a reminder that we're not going to be debating the definitions of fascism and communism here simply because one person mentioned tangentially on the thread is currently debating that subject.

Back to how wonderful Russell Brand is.
You love him. You want to marry him and do sexy kissing with him.
 
Just a reminder that we're not going to be debating the definitions of fascism and communism here simply because one person mentioned tangentially on the thread is currently debating that subject.

Back to how wonderful Russell Brand is.
That's a contradiction in terms.


You love him. You want to marry him and do sexy kissing with him.
Just as long as Brand and @Yithian aren't trying to sexy kissing time with me.....
 
Well, I'm too young for Peter Hitchens and far too old for Stephen Fry; at least Russell and I could talk about BMXs or something after we did the deed.
He won't be wasting time talking after he's had his fun.
 
Back
Top