Video below, I strongly advise watching for the full context of this article.
Russell Brand is, in some regards, the least likely person to be involved in controversy over political philosophies - a comedian often not shy of outrage and outlandish personas, filled with a less than exemplary past with drug addiction - however more than setting karma into order by performing in many charity and advocacy programmes aimed at assisting narcotic addicts on the front line - has not only broken down the comfort zone of the political class, but additionally has entered into the scene as a contender for the most relatable and sensical personality presently invoking change in the United Kingdom.
Editing the liberally influenced New Statesman, Brand speaks with a tongue of incredible articulation and in a brief interview enables the emotions of the majority of the population - not limited to Britain, but perhaps in wider Western Society - which has received a smear campaign from Paxman's traditionally status quo allies in the media and political class.
I find my own philosophies and beliefs symbolize in Brand; his personality and honesty is beyond refreshing in the prefabricated world of the major political influences in the United Kingdom, which often appears mass produced.
The argument against Brand is that he calls upon revolution without supplying the system to which revolution would implement, however, in his defence, he, himself, admitted that greater minds than his own would be responsible for the practical aspects of such a movement.
The media holds to account the lack of clarity against Brand with a void, arrogant point against the comedian who confessed his own lack of outline within his own answers.
The reality being that Brand has spoken the mindset of many of the electorate - with voting numbers falling year on year, the take over of many aspects of life by large corporations, and the political class destroying the hopes and dreams of the working class - with a ferocious roar and mighty bite.
A democracy should not on rely on votes or political parties for domestic change; the largest achievements on this nation were not brought into existence by the political doctorate; rather, individuals and grassroot movements were responsible for the wave of democracy and equality that has so far been resented by the pseudo-oppressive covenant of the wealthy and elitist.
Protest votes create a one-tier system for political parties where, until recently, the politics of entire nations would be relied upon two parties -- such as seen in the United States.
A lack of vote, and therefore an inability to form a government, forcing a greater number of political influences around the table, is a far superior method of change; just short of full revolution.
Why is Brand the influence that has been long awaited?
He's passionate about those in need; Brand has been seen to help the homeless, the addicted, the sick, and the poor with no photography equipment in-sight; his everyday kind acts are often only displayed due to the everyday smartphone - a fan, discovering Brand in the middle of a good deed.
He allowed himself to be angry and does not apologize for it and most importantly: he admits to his past errors with no excuse or sugar coating. Brand's words make sense, as does his logic and understanding of the common man.
No comments:
Post a Comment