The Russell — Brand
The myth, not the man
I haven’t written this to attack Russell Brand as a person, to question his motives or weigh in on the accusations he is defending. I’m not taking a neutral stance either. Rather, this is a commentary on the Brandiverse and I don’t want to conflate the Russell Brand persona with the alleged wrongdoings.
Russell Brand Inc.
Social media exploded with many suggesting that the Channel 4 documentary and complementary newspaper articles were a hit piece on Russell particularly and free speech in general. While I understand where this is coming from and can see some justification I don’t believe this to be the case. I feel it has more to do with Russell’s current MO than any supposed threat he poses to the establishment.
Some suggest a connection with the Julian Assange case and other cases of Western crack downs on truth tellers. The logic suggests that if this can happen to Russell it can happen to any one of us but that presupposes that the security state has a hand in this. My gut reaction is disgust. Not that Russell is any less of a person but that Assange becomes a trope for any and all conspiracy theories when his case is unique*.
This leads me into my core critique regarding the outrage.
Conspiracies and conspiracy theories
There is obviously no evidence that this targeting of Brand is in any way an attack on free speech. That so many came to Brand’s defence citing this as the driving force only demonstrates the depth of feeling and conviction on behalf of those seeing Brand as a threat to the establishment.
It’s no secret that the security state in the West has zero tolerance for those who call it out, Julian Assange being the poster child. The CIA have even proposed assassinating Assange and employed the services of a convicted paedophile in order to extradite him to the USA. Meanwhile Edward Snowden is permanently exiled in Russia. So why would the security state and, by extension, the mainstream media (who act as their stenographers) go after Russell Brand?
Brand has become well known for his platform on YouTube with its massive 6M+ following. The majority of his posts are dedicated to attacking the establishment whether it be the World Economic Forum, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organisation (WHO) or billionaires such as Bill Gates. The key difference between Brand and the likes of Assange and Snowden is that they released explosive exposés that wrong footed the security state whereas Brand merely broadcasts what is already in the public domain.
On top of this, his exposés are conspiratorial in nature rather than revelatory. Let’s take his position on SARS-CoV-2. While he relies on information from high profile sources he contradicts the evidence overwhelmingly presented by the scientific community and has been doing so for the last 3 years. He also courts a journalist who pushes archaeological theories that yet again are not only rejected by renowned archaeologists but are promoted by white supremicists.
If this gave the mainstream and social media platforms reason to take him down why did it take so long? YouTube could have demonitised and deplatformed him long ago. The security state wouldn’t consider him a threat because he’s not credible as an information source and, as we all now know, a sitting duck when it comes to mud slinging.
Inertia
Deep space probes need to travel at velocities far in excess of those obtainable by rocket propulsion in order to be of practical use. They are therefore directed towards the sun before being sling shot by the gravitational force of the Sun into deep space. Present allegations aside, Russell Brand hasn’t made his millions by being the ideal son-in-law. He courts publicity through both his charismatic personality and controversial private life and discourse.
He is transparently egocentric and narcissistic and uses that transparency to his favour, utterly disarming his critics who inevitably look prudish or naive. This allows him to make his points forcibly and candidly in contrast to those he is critical of who mince their words and have the charisma of an earth worm. Some say that far from being surprised, he has been preparing for this broadside.
He was even pre-warned and was able to declare the revelations as a conspiracy designed to silence his truth telling before they were broadcast. Predictably his followers have labelled the entire episode as a silencing of dissent and an attack on free speech. Not all have shamefully attacked the women bringing the allegations yet still focus on the the Brand platform, diminishing the accusations of sexual assault and control. We should not be able to bring up his reputation lest it prejudices his defence should he be prosecuted.
Let us not overlook the inertia Brand will enjoy should a prosecution not materialise or fail to bring a conviction. The demonitisation by YouTube is dollars in the bank in terms of publicity so long as Brand’s reputation remains intact. This compared with the alleged victims facing months, if not years, of unwarranted public attention with scant prospect of getting justice.
An alternative
In an alternative universe a celebrity is investigated over allegations of sexual assault and control. Following the prosecution of Bill Crosby, several Hollywood stars and the film producer Harvey Weinstein, the public overwhelmingly side with the victims despite not wanting to believe their idols have led double lives and behaved so badly.
In contrast, the celebrity in question is known to have had a sexual addition including with barely legal females and has often joked about treating women as sex objects, even in a telephone conversation with Jimmy Saville, a known paedophile and necrophile who often alluded to his sordid lifestyle but was never prosecuted.
Subsequent to the Despatches investigation, the conspiracies perpetuated by the accused are exposed as actual misinformation as the scientific community come out in force to dispel the myths. As a consequence other conspiracies unravel to expose half truths as well as facts arrived at more through luck than judgement.
Furthermore, pressure is put on the UK government to disband the Metropolitan Police Force and introduce new guidelines when dealing with allegations of sexual assault to address the inbalance of accused against accuser.
No brand
In Naomi Klein’s 1999 best seller No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, she addresses the power of brands over content. Nike and Pepsi sell lifestyle more than they sell cool sports gear or carbonated drinks. They influence culture and far from promoting liberty, prosperity and choice they effectively limit all three.
My contention is that Russell Brand is a brand. The content is neither here nor there. It’s all salesmanship, promotion and packaging. I bought into the brand until I questioned it and found it to be something of a cult, depending more on loyalty than objectivity. It relies on those who stand against the establishment, with its web of deceit and propaganda, being obsessed with conspiracies to the point that they cannot discern what is actual conspiracy.
- *Julian Assange challenged the very legitimacy of US hegemony. He exposed a singular superpower for its duplicity, barbarism and hypocrisy. His source was material kept under lock and key by that very administration and by broadcasting the information he had obtained, he undermined their ability to carry out attrocities without accountability. The threat of extradition is effectively a death sentence.
- While, for those who watch Russell Brand’s podcasts, it seems like injustices are being exposed, many of his sources have already been published. Some of his sources have been discredited while for others their exposé is merely a hobby horse.
- I find it shocking that even vocal supporters of Julian Assange have conflated the 2 cases simply on the basis that both Assange and Brand are being attacked by what can loosely be termed the establishment. This follows the logic that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck but then implies a conspiracy among the ducks in a pond.
