Society's Child
The court of public opinion instantly polarised between Brand haters who assume the allegations are true, and Brand supporters who view the report as a hit job, with some claiming that it is politically motivated payback for "questioning the system". Yet it's possible that they're all right. And in this case the only clear lesson of the story concerns not Brand, nor his supposed enemies, but instead our collective public hypocrisy where sex and power are concerned.
Did he do it? Who knows. Brand, who once bragged that his sex addiction saw him sleep with thousands of women, claimed in a video response to the allegations that every one of his prolific encounters was consensual. Though at that rate of throughput it's hard to see how he could remember every detail of each incident, perhaps he believes this. Meanwhile, I've had my share of encounters that seemed okay at the time but which were, in hindsight, pretty abusive — especially as public norms have shifted since #MeToo. (Brand was repeatedly awarded the Sun's title "Shagger of the Year", a testament to how differently pathological womanising was treated even relatively recently.)
So everyone in this story could well be telling the truth as they see it. Unsurprisingly, then, many Brand supporters have been quick to pivot from the allegations to the question of timing.
Why did everyone ignore this supposed "open secret" until now? Why, indeed. This question, and the indifference it demonstrates to the substance of the allegations, both highlights and enacts an endemic form of public hypocrisy concerning sexual wrongdoing.
The report itself recounts that everyone around Brand knew what he was like, and did their best to avoid exposing young women to his attentions. No one spoke out, often for fear of reprisals or professional difficulties. This repeats a pattern seen in sex scandal after sex scandal, from Savile through Epstein to (perhaps) Brand: high-status predators benefit from a kind of wilful unseeing that lets their actions go noticed but unpunished.
On this metric, we can also extend the definition of "status" beyond wealth and power, to castes which are protected for other reasons. Sexually abusive priests, for example, benefitted for a long time from this kind of selective blindness. More recently, we've seen added partial invisibility and benefit of the doubt granted to accused sexual abusers based on race (as in the British grooming gangs), or gender identity (as in cases like this). And on this calculus, too, sexual wrongdoing becomes magically visible again only when it is politically useful. It's no coincidence that the most vocal defenders of Rotherham's abused girls are often also campaigners against immigration.
This is not to say that grooming gangs should be ignored — only that it's almost always true that people care more about politics than about the suffering of women who have been assaulted or raped. Whatever the truth in Brand's case, many on the Left who knew his reputation perpetuated this dynamic for years while he was endorsing Labour. And his fans are still doing so now, in their insistence that the value of his political voice remains a mitigating factor against reports of his sexual wrongdoing.
The same is true of his enemies, including the women who came forward. The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand's new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero "dissident" material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out.
Everyone, in other words, subordinates the question of sexual misbehaviour to a political assessment of the accused. And perhaps it was ever thus, #MeToo or no #MeToo. In this case, the only takeaway from this ugly story is a warning to pretty young women. Be careful out there: for no one will care if you're assaulted by a high-status sexual predator, except that predator's political enemies.
Reader Comments
Meanwhile, I've had my share of encounters that seemed okay at the time but which were, in hindsight, pretty abusive
Erm, what!?
How long is it before having a Christian relationship is considered ‘abusive?’
What really gets me is that 5/10 years ago a normal relationship is now called abusive.
Like it’s my fault if some distant past relative owned a slave or two.
Times change. What’s acceptable today may not be acceptable tomorrow, I get that. But don’t come at me in a few years and label me abusive because I was standing up for myself in what was at the current time, totally the norm.
Regret doesn't just happen to women, but imagine any man went to the media and said "I had sex with a celebrity and now I understand it was rape" 20 years after the fact...
You take the L and move on. Regret is not tantamount to rape. I could have avoided all those situations by having higher standards and sticking with my expressed beliefs, though in the case of my roommate, I don't know what recourse I had except to move out because 20 years ago no one would have taken that seriously because I'm a guy.
That'll stir the pot
Timing is always connected to a narrative. Brand is reported as a self-proclaimed womanizer, and this was embraced by the media, and he grew rich and famous.
What changed at this time? He wasn't attacked a month ago. Is it simply a distraction from the real clown show, Ukraine, Maui, plandemic 2, engineered climate disasters? Did Brand shift gears, and the media is making an example out of Brand like Tate?
I don't see either Tate or Brand as having integrity, so I lean toward this being a distraction.
"In light of Channel 4's Dispatches report, The Sun has stripped Russell Brand of his [Shagger of the Year]] titles and handed them to a man who was just as promiscuous but did it all sensibly and caringly with no abuses of power. A Sun spokesman said: "The Shagger of the Year awards are a hallowed UK institution, like the NHS."
"I wrote for @theipaper on Russell Brand, his YouTube demonitisation - and how yet again it's come far too late to matter.Emphasis mine.
Fringe influencers get big and earn big on YouTube, stay there for years, and so have easy alternatives by the time YouTube acts. "
But the emphasis of the article is how he is still able to make money after mere accusations (still no charges filed as of 5 days after publication of accusations) and how YouTube is no longer the gatekeeper of who can make money expressing their counter-establishment points of view.
I wonder, and I'm sure someone here can tell me - the accusation of rape because he didn't use a condom ("stealthing") and the ensuing text conversation (and more importantly, continued relationship) with Brand, she asked if she should get tested, she went and had a rape kit done but didn't identify Brand and didn't file a police report - is this how some women procure free STI testing in Britain? I might be way off, but the thought did cross my mind, because why else would you get a rape kit done and then go back to your attacker. Or was the rape kit insurance for later?
I don't even like entertaining these thoughts, because it signifies how many lies I've consumed as truth in the past, and that I've known personally and known of many men who were falsely accused after a relationship ended. And the fact is that 15-20 years ago if you said you were raped because your partner didn't wear a condom, and not because he forced himself upon you, no one would take that seriously. Only now do we live in a society that has begun to accept that as rape, so he's being judged for his past actions from the lens of present sensibilities.
And all this ignores the fact that he has been open about his past and has turned his life around, stopped drinking and drugging and has helped others who fill the void in their hearts with substance abuse and promiscuity. It was not until he railed against the establishment that the media (not his supposed victims, mind you) decided to go after him.
[Link]
In my experience, the whorish women taught by western criminals are the creators of any and all situations.
Stupid sluts that have no clue about life or how they are to live, taught my mainstream khazarian criminals.
Retarded perspective of how these disgusting tramp sluts go around begging for attention and then years later get signed up by other criminals to come and tell lies.
Fuck them, and fuck anyone who allows this stupid shit.