Russell Brand, Accusations and the Freedom Movement: what 'everyone knows'

Selective memory and self-interest makes a sober evaluation difficult.

Free! On the 21st September, Edinburgh, Matthew Brown formerly from #Together will be discussing the corruption of science. You can reserve a ticket here.

A colleague of mine went to see Russell Brand several years ago, during the time when he was at the peak of his fame, around 2012 to 2014. He said there were a lot of beautiful women there, nearly all of whom were dressed very, very provocatively and many of them had come alone, which is unusual for a comedy event when it is nearly always couples, as everyone knows. I can’t remember if he told me it was at the beginning of the gig or at the end of it, but at one point Brand came off the stage and proceeded to walk up and down the aisles for a very explicit purpose; he was ‘making me choices’ as he said in his Fagin-esque style of ‘them days’. He strolled to and fro, picking out women to join him for sexual liaisons at either the after-party or the dressing room - I’m not sure which - like some sexually discriminating Willy Wonka in a sweet shop.

Everyone knew what he was doing. The women knew what he was doing. There was no discretion, no innuendo or assistants clandestinely rounding people up; and it would be an incredibly naive of any lady who thought, given the numbers on the night of those settled upon and the scheduling of the tour where similar rituals would likely be conducted, that she was about to enter into a monogamous and romantic relationship with Russell Brand. I do not think that is what the women hoping to gain Brand’s attention wanted - they may even have had boyfriends - no, they wanted to sleep with a sexy celebrity.

With Brand’s transformation into political activist then truth-teller and family man over the past decade, people may have forgotten the hype surrounding him that went on for several years. Many women were crazy about him and the archetype he represented (Johnny Depp-like pirate meets Mad Hatter meets Loki, God of Mischief). I attended a free comedy night in a pub where the comedians almost outnumbered the audience; one of the acts was a Russell Brand rip-off, almost to the point of using his jokes, and who, despite not being particularly funny, had two attractive women draped over him as he sat down…after leaving the ‘stage’ to tepid applause. I still remember the holier-than-thou and confirmed Covidiot, “comedian” David Baddiel, giggling as he recounted, in a documentary about Brand’s behaviour, of Brand’s sleeping with six women a day, one of whom was ‘always ugly’ which he used as ‘a palate cleanser’, Baddiel’s term. No outrage about that. And then there was his appearance on Graham Norton, years ago, when a buxom, and very well-endowed in the chest area, female made explicitly clear from her seat in the audience that she would like to go back to his dressing room. Who knows? She probably did.

To give an idea of his impact on women, the clip from him talking to Mika Brzezinski on Good Morning Joe, the US breakfast programme, is a good indication. The host, Joe Scarborough, husband of Mika and when a congressman a young female staffer was found dead in his office under mysterious circumstances but as yet there has been no investigation or anyone suspects questioned, was absent. (Why not?) His wife, daughter of globalist Zbigniew Brzenzinski, who coined the phrase that it was now ‘easier to kill a million people than manage them’, could barely complete her interview of Brand as she blushed, stuttered and literally shook, overwhelmed with presumably, a passionate sexual longing. This was a cold, tool of the New World Order, melting.

Personally, I don’t know how Brand didn’t get bored with all the attention focused on his sexual attractiveness over the years. As an admitted sex addict, I suppose he would find it gratifying. Did he get bored of the hangers on? The male friends that would have attached himself to Brand in the hope of sleeping with some disappointed groupies who were prepared to take second best if they could not win Brand’s attentions. This seemed to happen as Brand recounted in a Guardian column some years ago, where an unclear accusation of sexual assault was made by one woman of one of Brand’s associates at an Edinburgh Festival after-party. The celebrity lot - fame, money, sex, delusion, surrounded by many who are dubious, scheming, lying, manipulating, dependent and resentful.

This is part of the context in which the accusations of sexual assault took place. Others such as his insecurities, his drug addictions and the voracious nature of the media add more. None of this provides an excuse, but it does provide an understanding that is a little deeper than the superficial assumptions and demands of those that want him found guilty without a trial, or exonerated because he’s a perceived leader of the Freedom Movement.

I watched part of the Dispatches programme on Channel 4 but had to turn it off. The salacious framing of the accusations and the use of comedy routines to imply guilt made clear that this was a hit job. The contributions by former personal assistants (not the alleged victims) who said they did not like the fact ‘women were disposable’ or the disingenuous claim that it was ‘a different era’, so they did not speak out were clearly meant to be manipulative: along with the claim of having to receive phone calls of distraught women in tears saying that Brand had not called back after they had slept together - perhaps some people that gravitate to celebrities are that naive. There is nothing illegal about sleeping with lots of people and plenty of celebrities do it. Everyone knows that too. Why was that relevant?

If the programme had been a sober, meticulous investigation of the alleged victims’ claims, then it would have been a better programme and something that was in keeping with the seriousness of the allegations. I actually think it disrespects the alleged victims to set forward accusations in what comes across an unsubtle attempt to smear. Their case is undermined by this flagrant bias and it makes it easier for those inclined to dismiss the claims as being part of another agenda.

There are questions that have to be answered by Brand, if the accusers maintain their stance and take the step to make matters official. Just as there are questions that have to be answered by Channel 4, Dispatches and The Sunday Times. For Brand, the questions are obvious, and it should go to court. (Over the past twenty four hours many on social media have claimed that the courts provide no recourse to justice for victims of sex crimes; two points - not all accusations are found to be true and trial in a court is preferable to trial by media.) For the media involved, the questions are more nuanced: why now? What triggered the investigation? Were any payments involved? Why were the media quiet for so long? Given the possibility that one of the accusers in the Andrew Tate, ‘Sophie’, does not actually exist - his lawyers cannot find out anything about her and have been given no details about her - then we have to keep in the backs of our minds that some of these accusers might be invented by other parties or the media itself (a new low for the mainstream media, if true).

The BBC, now a genuinely odious outfit, and who gave Brand plenty of airtime when his sympathies were recognisably left-wing, has made Brand’s troubles the lead story for two nights in a row with not one but two senior reporters sat across from the newsreader recounting the ‘facts’ of the case. The difference in approach between Brand and Huw Edwards is quite stark. It was not dwelt upon that Edwards had groomed teenagers, at the age of sixty'; rather, as I recall, the emphasis was on the invasion of privacy and stressing that Edwards had ‘done nothing illegal’. It is unclear that Brand has done anything illegal and Brand’s ‘relationship’ with a sixteen year old, despite being three decades younger than the BBC newsreader, is subject to an opprobrium that Edwards’ grooming was not. This is not defending Brand; it is merely highlighting the different ways and double standards the media use when shaping the story around personalities and their actions, depending on whether they want to protect or crucify them. Everyone knows that too.

Brand has a following larger than Channel 4, The Sunday Times and the BBC News at Ten put together, and, obviously, he has been speaking out on issues that are worth multiple billions of dollars to many, many powerful people; we all know what happens when you cross these people. They bribe you; they smear you; they discredit you; they kill you. It just depends on how big a threat you are and how important you happen to be. Tens of thousands of people are dying in a war needlessly provoked; and fed on by commercial interests to the tune of billions, Brand questioned this. Billions are expected to roll-up their sleeves and obediently take the next vaccine for the next ‘virus’ and comply with the next set of lockdowns that are expected imminently, all of which will make hundreds of billions for pretty much the same set of people, Brand questioned this also. He was making enemies. Everyone knows this.

Julian Assange did something similar. After exposing corruption and war crimes, something which a just state would thank him for, he faced two accusations of rape. Given the emotional nature of the accusations it is difficult for people to maintain an equilibrium about such allegations, but a little investigation of the Assange case reveals that both accusers admit that sex with Assange was consensual. However, in Sweden, having sex with a knowingly damaged condom is classified as rape. The kernel of the charge was that Julian Assange knew the condoms he used were unfit for purpose. The Swedish police charged with inspecting the details of the suspected crime were so diligent and efficient and transparent that they stapled the aforementioned rubber evidence to the charge sheet - in case it was lost. This is the wider context of the accusations against Brand.

Brand’s case is not as obvious a case of blatant corruption and political abuse. He may have broken the law. We should listen to the alleged victims, while remembering, at present, he’s innocent until proven guilty and we will just have to wait and see. Perhaps his usefulness to the Freedom Movement is over (perhaps it is a set-up to disillusion us with another ‘hero’) or he still has more to give. Time will tell. He has been very effective at ‘waking people up’ and bringing these important issues the mainstream will not cover despite their obligations to do so to the attention of millions. Nonetheless, the Freedom Movement cannot get too hung-up on heroes; they will always be human beings with flaws, possibly compromised, possibly completely artificial. We have to rely on ourselves. Everyone knows that by now.

Free! On the 21st September, Edinburgh, Matthew Brown formerly from #Together will be discussing the corruption of science. You can reserve a ticket here.