The Russell Brand scandal is big news right now. And by “big news” I mean it is quite literally the front-page story in every major newspaper in the UK…
British tabloids all put out the hit piece on Russell Brand at once pic.twitter.com/gTIVRsK7rx
— David Wolfe (@DavidWolfe) September 17, 2023
…that level of media coordination is weird in and of itself.
I mean, we’re in a time of war, pestilence and famine. And while “celebrity sex scandals” may be interesting to Daily Mail editors they’re not exactly a Horseman of the Apocalypse.
Honestly, most of the time OffG would probably have dismissed this story as tabloid nonsense not worth discussing, but the sheer amount of noise surrounding this story means there must be more to it. A deeper level worth investigating.
Briefly, because you likely already know most of it. Russell Brand is a British comedian, actor and TV presenter who as has re-invented himself as an alternate media voice/political activist via his YouTube channel. He was an outspoken critic of the Covid19 narrative, most especially the “vaccines”.
His notoriety is such that many don’t entirely trust him, labelling him a “shill”.
Without taking a position either way, it should be noted that he went on Bill Maher’s show and told nothing but the truth…
Russell Brand dropped some facts on Bill Maher’s show about big pharma, the military industrial complex, and the banking industry. Was this when they decided he needed to be taken down? pic.twitter.com/QsovCc4T0c
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 17, 2023
The truth doesn’t stop being true because it comes out of the mouth of a shill, and the more people that hear those facts the better. At the same time, that he was provided that platform at all is curious.
Either way, now he’s been accused of rape and sexual assault.
The accusations came about thanks to a “joint investigation” by several media outlets, and were aired on Channel 4’s “Dispatches” documentary series on Sunday night. The alleged incidents all took place between 10 and 15 years ago, the accusers themselves are anonymous and were voiced by actresses in the documentary.
Brand denied the accusations vehemently and completely in a video on his YouTube channel.
As is the way of these things, it’s now become a feeding frenzy. Every celebrity, however minor, is coming forward with their “Russell Brand is a dickhead” story, while newspaper editors have tasked interns with poring over every second of footage of Brand to find potentially “offensive” content.
According to a statement from the Metropolitan Police not one person has come forward to officially accuse Brand of any crime, and no investigations are taking place.
UPDATE: It was announced just minutes ago that the Met police are investigating another allegation, this time from 2003.
Literally everyone is talking about it, in very predictable ways.
The people that hated Brand already, that objected to his Covid skepticism or criticism of the mainstream media, are all jumping at the chance to call him a sexual predator.
While the people who agree with him already are claiming it’s all a set up. That he’s being targeted by the same media he rails against in his videos.
We – as usual – are declining the invited binary, while pointing out that the law requires people to be assumed innocent until proven guilty
…so what’s the plan?
That’s really the most interesting point on which to speculate. As always, the story of the story is the story. What is the point here? The allegations, the fall out, the media storm, they serve a purpose…but what?
Prima facie, they serve the same end as anonymous accusations throughout time. Brand, whatever you think of him, holds (or claims to hold) minority opinions frowned upon by the establishment, and discrediting the man discredits the message. That’s basic, see the Julian Assange “rape” accusations as another recent example.
There’s a flipside to this. By attacking Brand with (so far) very weak ammunition, the establishment could be trying to increase his anti-establishment bona fides. By treating him as a threat they get cast a sort of proxy vote for leader of the opposition. After all, there’s no doubt this will increase his support in certain circles.
More subtle, long term thinking, could see a full discrediting of the man and his supporters, by presenting a weak case which is immediately refuted, only to follow it up with stronger evidence and/or a confession from Brand himself. This would taint his message and hurt the credibility of anyone who supported him, whilst boosting the credentials of mainstream “journalism”.
More generally, they do have a society to control.
It hasn’t happened yet, but it wouldn’t be surprising if Brand were to lose his YouTube channel over this (in the current climate it’s very odd it survived Covid intact, to be honest). This would further the push towards “moral” censorship and the spread of “deplatforming” and cancel culture.
This has knock on effects for other critics of the mainstream, too. Seeing someone so famous brought low by this kind of seemingly contrived “scandal” could frighten other potential dissenting voices into keeping quiet.
You may have noticed, but our society has gone mad.
From race to sex to Covid everything has become an opportunity to both signal your own virtues and denounce the sins of your neighbours. This atmosphere of suspicion is very useful to the powers-that-be, but the fervid Crucible-like atmosphere that has been carefully nurtured needs to be sustained with a careful feeding of divisive hot-button news.
More practically, a slow and steady erosion of the idea of presumed innocence is helpful to aspiring tyrants everywhere. And it’s always good to normalise Orwellian unpersoning and rewriting of history.
As one of OffG’s commenters pointed out this morning, there’s also a potentially interesting tie-in to the UK’s upcoming “Online Harms Bill”:
The Russell Brand thing turns out to be even more than first appears. The whole concerted plot was easy to spot a mile off but the repercussions go much deeper.
The government are now asking Youtube (Google) to self censor as they can take RB et al. off MSM but they can’t (Yet) restrict Youtube content. Mark my words this will give the “online harms bill” a new impetus and the comparison with Jimmy Savile welds the evil transgressor image in people’s minds, much like the sinister “denier” label.
Clutching at straws
As they highlight, the comparisons of Brand to Savile are currently everywhere. Which is absolutely bizarre, because even if Brand is guilty as accused…there’s a world of difference between that and supposed pedophilic necrophilia.
Whatever comes out, the simple truth is that the entire media machine is churning out material on this story. And that doesn’t happen unless there’s a rollout on the way.
But what do you think?
- Do you trust Russell Brand?
- Do you think he is a “shill”?
- Do you believe the accusations?
- Is it just a cliché witch-hunt?
- Is there more to it?
- Will he be kicked off YouTube?
- Will there be a criminal charge?
- How will this impact the alternative media in general?
- Will it impact the passing of the Online Harms Bill?
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.