I'm probably not the only one who was surprised by the news yesterday that Russell Brand had been, after all, charged by the British Police and would be appearing in court next month regarding those allegations of sexual assault and rape (or do they all fall under sexual assault? I'm not sure).
Personally, I've found him difficult to stomach, though I was a fan during the pandemic, but ever since he got baptized, he became a bit much for me. I've got nothing against Christians or any religious people, quite the opposite in fact, but anyone of any creed (or lack thereof) who insists on bombarding you with their specific idol or core belief is, to me, a bit weird.
Nevertheless, to charge someone over stuff that allegedly happened more than twenty years ago is mind-blowing to me. Not to mention, extremely hard to prove. It seems to me, sexual acts that took place back in 1999-2005 should be past their sell-by by now, for sure. And it seems particularly unsavory to attack someone over sexual misbehavior from a crazy, rebellious past from more than two decades ago. Come on.
I listened to his response to the allegations on X, and while I do think he could've chosen a better way to phrase some things, I thought it was a fairly okay reaction. Then I came across the Reuters report and thought how fascinating, how easily the mainstream betrays itself in a piece of news so simple and straightforward as this. After all, he's hardly the first public figure to be accused of pervy stuff, right?
"...known for his flamboyant style. By the early 2020s, he had faded from mainstream culture, appearing mainly on his Internet channel, where he airs his views on US politics"
Note how they present him as a loser and a has-been, immediately creating this air of seediness about him, someone you could feasibly picture assaulting a vulnerable woman. What's interesting to note, though, is that it's not Russell Brand from the past they're painting this picture of, but the Russell Brand of today. They do, however, understand the value of a good visual, and as such use almost exclusively snippets of him back then, when indeed, he does seem like quite a sleazy, unpleasant character.
Which does beg the point. Being as he was a self-confessed alcoholic, drug addict and sex addict, one does wonder as to the moral character of the women who spent time with him, in the first place. It seems to me, if we're going to dig up the man's shady, unsavory past, it's only fair to dig up the so-called victim's, also. And yes, if the woman in question was at the time also a drug addict, sex addict, alcoholic, or in other ways in a bad place, then maybe that does bring into question her ability to make wise decisions regarding sexual partners.
Just a thought.
But back to the coverage itself, which I found fascinating. Appearing on his Internet channel. As if the Internet were this mysterious, far-away thing. They're keeping it purposefully vague and confusing to paint it as if it's still early 2000s. Only some fringe weirdos are exposing their bizarre theories on "the Internet".
This in a Reuters montage, a staple of mainstream "journalism". It certainly fits their tune to suggest that these weirdos on the Internet are little better than the guy yelling on the subway about the end of the world.
At the most recent weigh-ins, the world of fringe Internet podcasting and broadcasting had mainstream journalism beat by miles. I'm not sure about Brand's personal standing on Rumble and other platforms, but last I checked, he was far from an Internet nobody.
It's that approach common in old people who have given up on trying to follow or keep up with the world. But sadly, just because you're willfully blind to it doesn't make it any less true, and as with those old people, unfortunately, refusing to follow the progress of our world does mean it will eventually leave you behind.
"On US politics"
That's an interesting telltale, right? This crazy man on the Internet saying things about Trump and Covid that don't agree with what we say. Must be some nutter far-right conspiracy theorist for sure, and we all know what those are like. As I say, I haven't been following him lately, but from the pandemic, I remember him talking about control, breach of rightful law and diet and other health-related things.
If that makes you criminal, then to quote the great Falstaff, then many an old host that I know is damned. Notice how it's presented as if it's vaguely a crime for him to just talk about US politics. Like what right does he have.
I also love how they describe him as "Katy Perry's former husband". I thought fuck me, imagine if that was the only notable thing about you. They just pretend the past 20 years haven't existed for this man, which is worth noting, I believe because they have existed. In them, he has made a reputation as an anti-establishment, anti-mainstream figure. He is challenging the accepted narratives on a bunch of things from politics to Covid, but also through his very metier at the moment, challenging and in a way singing funerary hymns to the old world of journalism.
It's not just the MSM hitting at an anti-Covid loony, as we might think. It's hitting at the new face of journalism. Now as the report itself mentions, Brand himself was once a top British broadcaster in the traditional sense. What that suggests is that he has fallen from the top, when in fact, it's the broadcasting scene that has changed.
He may well still be a top British broadcaster. As I say, I don't know his exact audience numbers, but the truth is, people like Reuters or traditional journos are no longer relevant, so whatever is currently at the top for them no longer accurately represents the world of news reporting.
And they can't fucking stand that.
This isn't necessarily a comment on whether Brand is innocent or that. I can't know. You can't know either. But it certainly raises my suspicions when someone in this position is suddenly accused over some alleged maybe assault from 25 years ago. You know?
