Idiocy Is Our Brand
A takedown of Russell Brand's supporters and their arguments in defence of him
Introduction
After a nearly four year investigation, with thousands of hours of research, interviews, Freedom of Information requests, logs from councillors, psychologists, journals from rape crisis centres, text exchanges between the accused and the victims, Dispatches on Channel 4, in collaboration with The Times, released their bombshell reporting on Russell Brand.
There’s been endless reports, articles and podcasts spent on the news of Brand’s alleged crimes.
This post isn’t about that.
In fact, it’s not even really about Brand or his supposed victims.
Rather, it’s about the response from his fanbase and fellow ideological travellers, such as Elon Musk, Pearl Davies, Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, as well as millions who follow Brand’s every utterance on platforms like YouTube, Rumble and X.
These people have decided to discard any semblance of logic, human decency or critical thinking in favour of partisanship, not stopping for even a second to think about the (alleged) victims or the rationale behind their position.
I will not replay the case here, but focus on the excuses offered, and systematically debunk every single one of them.
Argument number 1:
This is a coordinated attack by Mainstream Media to take down Brand, because of his criticism of the same institutions.
Originating from Brand himself, this ridiculous claim has been echoed by the likes of Elon Musk to his 157 million followers, as well as Matt Walsh on “The Daily Wire”.
It amazes me that anyone can take this ludicrous idea seriously, but since these people’s sycophantic fanbases unquestionably lap up everything they say, I suppose it should be dissected, even though it doesn’t deserve the effort.
First thing to mention is that Brand is not a threat to MSM. There is not one editor on the planet who is concerned about the impact Brand has on their business. Not one.
Russell Brand isn’t a threat to Channel 4, The Times or any other MSM organisation. He is part of MSM. Just in 2022, Brand was paid millions of dollars to appear in Universal Studios’ “Minions - The Rise of Gru”, with the likes of Steve Carrell, Julie Andrews and 20th Century Fox’ “Death on the Nile”, alongside Gal Gadot and Kenneth Branagh.
Not exactly a modern day Howard Beale. He is what he has always been; available for hire by the highest bidder.
Criticising MSM on YouTube and Rumble by conflating intelligence with a barrage of multisyllabic words, while being employed by the owners of those very outlets to the tune of millions of dollars, doesn’t make you a threat - it makes you a hypocrite.
But there’s a more pertinent fact that devastates this argument, which is:
Why would the same MSM organisations publish something which thoroughly incriminates themselves?!
In the Dispatches episode, and The Times’ reporting, it is made abundantly clear that Channel 4 themselves, as well as the BBC and ITV, all enabled Brand’s alleged predatory behaviours.
Now, if the goal is to take down a threat against MSM, why would anyone publish a report which makes the MSM come out looking like enablers of rape and grooming?
It would have to be the worst case of unintentional harakiri in modern day history.
Matt Walsh actually alludes to this in his incoherent rant on The Daily Wire, but he fails to see how he is debunking his own argument by showing how MSM bear enormous responsibility for Brand’s alleged crimes.
Argument number two:
Only after Brand changed from being a promiscuous lothario, and started fighting Big Pharma, “The Ukraine Myth”, Govt lies and MSM, did they come after him.
This claim assumes that there are intelligent people who give Russell Brand credibility.
But it’s simply impossible for a thinking person to take someone who wrote the following paragraph with a modicum of credibility:
(From his 2014 book “Revolution”)
”This attitude of churlish indifference seems like nerdish deference contrasted with the belligerent antipathy of the indigenous farm folk, who regard the hippie-dippie interlopers, the denizens of the shimmering tit temples, as one fey step away from transvestites.”
As desperately as he wishes to be seen like his heroes, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez, Brand is nothing more than a champagne socialist with an endless supply of thesauruses, yet without the knowledge of how to use one.
But what truly demolishes this ridiculous argument is the timeline…
Brand didn’t go on his faux contrarian crusade until relatively recently, when events such as Covid and Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine started, and which gave him an ample opportunity to amass a following of sheep desperate to think they’re the intelligent ones for not following the conventional narrative and consensus of experts.
But the verified text messages indicting Brand, where he repeatedly apologises for an alleged rape, are from years before Brand was considered the Guy Fawkes his fanboys think him to be.
The journals of not just the victims, but logs from rape crisis centres, councillors and psychologists, all pre-date Brand’s latest incarnation into a wannabe revolutionary.
So, what is the argument here? That Channel 4 and The Times travelled back in time to plant these inconvenient items in place?
Or they did so as a precaution at the time, just in case Brand one day decides to espouse conspiracy theories about Big Pharma, Ivermectin and the wonderfulness of Vladimir Putin?
This is the level of intelligence we are dealing with when it comes to Brand’s supporters.
Argument number 3:
The alleged victims should’ve gone to the police, not the press!
I expected to hear this from ignoramuses like Pearl Davis or Alex Jones, but to see someone whose morals I truly admire and inspire to live up to, the great Winston Marshall, repeat this was extremely disheartening.
This claim requires the proponent to be blind to the fact that rape and sexual assaults are uniquely heinous and demoralising crimes, which - far beyond the physical toll on the victim - reduces them to emotional wreckages in states of profound despair.
Unless experienced, one can never know what goes inside the mind of a rape victim, and should never assume to. All we can do is to listen to actual victims explaining their logic. In the journal Violence Against Women in 2021, Sandra Caron, professor of family relations and human sexuality as well as licensed therapist, and Deborah Mitchell, a retired UMaine police sergeant, interviewed victims of sexual assault to find out why they didn't share details with anyone.
They report:
The two most common reasons given for not telling anyone about being assaulted were internal blame, shame and guilt, and external blame and/or fear of humiliation.
One victim reports:
"By saying it out loud, it released the shame I have carried for so long … a shame that I never should have owned to begin with"
Less than 4% of rapists ever see a day behind bars.
In Britain, less than 2% of rapes are ever prosecuted.
And these are cases where the perpetrator isn’t a multimillionaire with resources to hire the best attorneys money can buy.
In the last decade, many high profile cases have come to light, where a powerful man - Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Jimmy Savile - systematically and brutally assaulted and raped powerless girls for decades.
In Britain, gangs of mainly Muslim men have, for decades, groomed and raped young girls in practically every county. From the Rochdale Inquiry, we learn that the few times girls actually did go to report their assailants, they were dismissed and even blamed.
And these weren’t powerful multimillionaires with the financial power to destroy their victims’ lives, or with a trigger-happy fanbase eager to destroy the lives of the victims and their families on social media.
Just ask the families of victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, who - thanks to Alex Jones’ endless lies about the event being staged - have had to move homes multiple times, because of the avalanche of abuse Jones’ fanbase have directed towards them.
It is in this climate victims are being asked “Well, why didn’t they just go to the police?”
It’s a reprehensible, ignorant question asked by people who can never fathom the trauma a victim goes through.
Argument number 4:
He is innocent until proven guilty.
This is the most frustrating of all arguments, because of the seemingly logical nature of the idiom.
The proponents of this argument seem to think that, by repeating the slogan over and over again, it magically makes it true, and no further thinking is required.
Before I debunk this nonsense too, let me clarify:
The “innocent until proven otherwise” concept is a crucial, imperative principle that can never be questioned in a modern, fair society. But this only applies in a court of law! It is not a prerequisite anywhere else!
What makes a person guilty is whether they have committed a crime, not whether the jury are convinced by the evidence offered in a trial.
Modern history is awash with cases where a clearly guilty person - be it OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson or the aforementioned Jimmy Savile - were never convicted in a courtroom.
Does that mean that they were therefore innocent?
Of course not.
This is particularly true in cases of sexual assault and rape where, if there is no DNA, witnesses or recordings of the incident, evidence to satisfy a jury is extremely difficult to produce, especially when years after the alleged incident.
None of this means the alleged crimes didn’t happen. That’s not how reality works.
Conclusion:
Brand’s defenders don’t actually care about the truth. Theirs is solely a partisan, tribal position, which is designed to affirm their preconceived conspiracy mindset.
It’s a very convenient position, isn’t it? The person espousing conspiracy theories can, in theory, get away with murder, as any accusation of such would only confirm the conspiracy theory.
Brand, who has endorsed 9/11 truthers and David Icke, who believes every war is designed by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to make profits, isn’t a revolutionary hero. He isn’t a threat to MSM or The Powerful.
He’s just a stupid, ignorant little man. And possibly a rapist and sexual predator.
You miss the main issue, actually the only one: the demonetizing of his videos while they are still being played, and the government going after his other income before he's been charged, allowed to face his accusers, and been subsequently convicted of anything, let alone charged. That's wrong, no matter who it's done to. Whether your arguments are right or wrong, they miss the mark. Maybe you felt the same way about Kevin Spacey, and still do even after his acquittal on all charges?