Almost no one seems willing to hold their tongue on the latest claims. Here are my observations: not on the allegations, but on all the noise
Hmm... I think Brand is his own worst enemy. He's quite happy to be the 'bad boy' because of the wealth he accumulates but seems unwilling to acknowledge his complicity in a totally corrupt system that's setup to exploit his vanity on the one hand and carry out a public lynching on the other. Play with the big boys and risk getting shat on.
It's a sad day when you must leave notations to help prevent being misunderstood but an even sadder one when even that is not enough. Unfortunately there are a ton of idiots who stop after the first "Buzzword" because of brilliant programming and propaganda!
Totally agree with all you have written here. I have said much the same on Twitter. I’m not under 35 (72) and have watched Russell’s podcasts from time to time. I have never considered him to be rightwing either. This does not mean that I condone rape or sexual violence either.
A relief to come away from the screaming binfire that is social media on this subject and hold more than one thought about this up to the light for a moment. Thank you.
Russel Brand has slid down the patsoc grifter pipeline like Jimmy Dore. All they’re promoting are themselves at this point. They should be ignored.
I think there’s one other thing to add to this. The uniformity of the language being used from ministers to the media all immediately condemning him as guilty is suspect.
That doesn’t mean the allegations aren’t true, they must of course be investigated. None of us will know until court, and even then we won’t really. Who, given the total charade we’ve seen over Julian Assange in the UK courts over the past number of years, has any faith in its impartiality?
But that uniformity (the unprovoked invasion syndrome) does reveal that this opportunity is going to be seized by power to totally discredit a powerful and eloquent critic of the prevailing and savage power structure. Whatever he did/didn’t do in the past, does not change the truth in a lot of what he says today.
The ladies in question deserve to be taken seriously, have their chance in court and Russell deserves to be have his chance to be heard in court as you say.
Even if found not guilty, he’ll be tarnished forever.
A well written piece Jonathan - and brave. Putting anything out about this at the minute is bound to attract flak. Even if it is totally impartial like this.
Weeks after Trump’s inauguration, I attended a DailyKos “conference” in Death Valley that was supposedly called together to address the Russian “menace.” They picked Death Valley “because the Russians can’t “spy on us there.” We were also told to cast off our electronics b/c of “security” reasons.
The interesting thing is that they spent maybe 30 mins talking about Russia. The REST was how they were gonna 1) get intel of sexual indiscretions on political enemies and use that to “cancel” them, and 2) issue boycotts of disfavored media. Their own “media strategy” was to not have a media strategy. Instead they’d have social media “influencers” simply boost their messages. They said it’d all been set up and ready to go.
Since then, I’ve marveled at how frequently this tactic is used—and how quickly these allegations are dismissed when they impugn anyone in the IC-Dem orbit. https://www.brookhines.com/p/neoliberals-glamping-in-death-valley
There seemingly is no legal course anymore just that of public opinion and corrupt back door dealings. Documentaries were once used to bring to light crimes, indescrepencies, or otherwise unheard of points of view of those with less power. Now, not unexpectedly, they are hijacked to take down anyone going against the grain or to hijack the medium to muddy the juror pool. Look at the accused long island serial killer, hasn’t and been to trial and there’s 2(maybe more) documentaries out exclaiming he is the guy. The DA, announced, a lot of coincidental evidence on his arraignment. Which is something that was once thought of as illegal/unjudicial. Circumstantial evidence used to have less value and in general was evidence used to corroborate hard evidence. Having these opinions does not mean I condone rape or sexual violence.
Perhaps the five eye editorial cesspit of UK media will be doing an in depth analysis of Kevin Spacey's full exoneration on appeal a couple of weeks ago...
I won't hold my breath however.
Without expressing any opinion on these specific allegations, the establishment has a long and lavishly documented history of using lurid sexual allegations to frame people it doesn't like.
Well said again, Johnathan. Brand did drugs and had a lot of women in his past. Taking illegal drugs was punishable by law. He escaped such punishment and his use back then is a dead issue. Having a lot of women is not a crime. Assault and rape are. If they can be proven, he will face punishment.
What is of greater interest is the way the inference of sexual crime is being used by the forces of the establishment against those who openly oppose them. Brand is such a man. It is baseless slander that was used to make Assange a vulnerable victim of sick Capitalist governments, and the way the demonstrably specious rot about anti-Semitism was used to bring Jeremy Corbin down, and disarm his politics which was based in desire to effect change in ossified Brit polity to benefit the public.
The dishonest, criminal, predatory governments of diseased and dying Europe, and the moribund, senile American behemoth will use any means, however sleazy, to destroy the few opponents with courage and integrity enough to take them on and wound them, and it is beyond contemptible.
Guess I'm out of this reality loop.
Timing is everything with this. Brand made no secret of his addictions and promiscuity at that time and this was encouraged and exploited by the main media who made huge profits out of his outrageous behaviour and his popularity with young people. The women complaining now MUST have been aware of all of this at the time and none of them seem to have made complaints previously especially to the police. The woman who was 16 at the time is of course the exception and if she was in a relationship with Brand surely she should have been taken aside and given advice by those close to her along with Brand's employers who knew everything there was to know about him.
Russell Brand has now overcome his addictions, matured, settled down with a family, has become politically aware and isn't afraid to voice his opinions exposing corruption where he sees it. Therefore it really isn't surprising that the powers that be have decided to deal with him in the same way that they have done with Julian Assange and others who have dared to expose them.
Was a crime committed? Call the police. But no, it is perhaps best to write to the artist's agency and the press. And is it really that hard to go against someone who is famous? Just asking for Depp, Allen, and some others. Christ, this goes back to Charlie Chaplin. Or is it possible that these people who were all old enough to make a mistake aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of that mistake? Rape is horrible and rapists should be put away for a long time. But women (and men) who are disappointed in themselves for allowing themselves to be used should not be allowed to ruin the lives of other people. Can I sue the adults in my life because I finally realised that Santa Claus doesn't exist? If these people have witnesses and can prove what they are saying, they should go to the police. Otherwise it is an obvious concerted effort to bring down someone who a) conveys inconvenient facts and b) has an audience.
Russel Brand does not need to sexually assault - millions of women are crazy for him.
This looks like a setup to me.
Thank you again Jonathan for being a voice 0f moderatio and reason.