Sometimes people need to be filed under ‘W’ for ‘wanker’

We are all getting used to the champagne socialist Russell Brand gobbing off in the media and promoting his own sort of toytown socialism, his behaviour has become much more funny than his comedic material. However, he has recently come out with statements that are not only counterfactual but which actively deny the existence of a very real threat.

Nobody with any sense or knowledge of history, religion and politics can deny that the appalling attacks on the United States of America were carried out by radical Muslims enthused with a nihlistic desire to kill as many people as possible with no thought about whether their victims were good or bad, black or white, Muslim or non-Muslim. The 9/11 religioiusly inspired mass murderers were just that, nothing more and nothing less, and anybody who says differently really should be filed in the box marked ‘deluded conspiraloon’. Anybody who knows about Jihad and Islamic terror can understand how the ideology of Islam inspired the 9/11 mass murderers.

Russell Brand has come out and publicly said that he has doubts about who and what was behind the 9/11 Islamic attacks. He has said that he ‘has an open mind’ about whether or not the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

This is seriously dangerous ground because if people start chasing phantoms with regards 9/11 they become diverted from the very real threat of Islamic terror. Brand is playing into the hands of, and giving comfort to some very deluded and questionable people and ideologies.

Here’s what the Guardian newspaper said about a recent interview that Brand gave to the BBC’s Newsnight programme.

The Guardian said:

“Comedian Russell Brand said he was “open-minded” about the idea that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks during a second appearance on BBC2’s flagship Newsnight programme.

Brand – who has written a book entitled Revolution, setting out his views for political change, in the wake of his last interview with Jeremy Paxman– highlighted what he described as the “interesting” relationship between the families of former US president George W Bush and the former al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

During a series of fractious exchanges with new presenter Evan Davis he accused the former BBC economics correspondent of being “mates with like CEOs and big businesses” and of “cosying up” to London mayor Boris Johnson.

Pressed by Davis on comments in his book about the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, Brand refused to rule out the possibility that the American government was behind them – and went on to accuse the BBC of promoting an “anti-Islamic narrative” in its coverage of this week’s attack by a gunman on the Canadian parliament.”

Where do I start in unpicking these statements from Brand? Let’s take the Bush / Bin Laden comment for a start. The Bin Laden family is very high profile in Saudi business. There are many people who have had dealings with then in construction and other areas, that in no way constitutes proof of any form of conspiracy to harm the United States. Lots of relationships are ‘interesting’ but that does not mean that there is any form of criminal conspiracy going on.

The comments about the BBC promoting an ‘anti-Islamic narrative’ in its coverage of Islamic terror attacks is also disconnected from reality. Those of us who observe the BBC’s output know that this broadcaster goes out of its way to whitewash the ideology of Islam. The use by the BBC of words and phrases such as ‘jihadi inspired’ or ‘militant’ to describe murderous Islamic terroristic savages is a well known triumph of euphemism over accuracy in reporting. The BBC under its current structure and editorial culture could no more run an ‘anti-Islamic narrative’ than water in a stream could decide for itself to flow uphill.

Those who support Islamic extremism and Islamic terror must really love people like Russell Brand because they willingly and foolishly run political and media cover for Jihadists. People like Brand are all too enthusiastic in jumping up and blaming our own societies for the ills and destruction brought to us by those who have become enamoured of the more violent bits of Islamic ideology.

Brand is a clown, laughably foolish, a dilettante and a faux revolutionary who probably in his arrogance believes that his poorly thought through views are important. In this he is no different in his delusions from the members of the Stalin Society, who believe that Comrade Stalin has been traduced by history, but we don’t hear or see members of the Stalin Society being interviewed on national media or having their concerns avidly consumed by idiots. Brand is a third rate comedian who was only propelled to fame by working for a spin-off to the Big Brother TV programme, a few crap films and a short lived marriage to Katy Perry. None of these ‘achievements’ are anything like a valid qualification to speak about the great issues of the day or the many threats that free peoples and free nations face.

The only thing missing from Brand’s public persona is a white painted face, some oversized shoes and a comical car where the doors fall off. It’s time to seriously fisk and fillet Brands idiotic views and cease to treat him with the sort of reverence that he himself believes he deserves.