The grifterverse and Russell Brand

From Freedom News UK

Just under a decade ago, Russell Brand was going through his revolutionary leftist phase and had gotten into anarchism, a topic which he characteristically used for the benefit of his own hype but which also prompted “interest” from the mainstream media.

By interest, I, of course, mean ignorant denunciation from centrist talking heads, who inevitably used Brand’s voluble public persona as a good means of showing off their in-crowd credentials with a bit of sneering at the Dumb Celeb Being Political trope.

This flirtation with left and radical politics can be placed a little ahead of Brand’s decade-long fall out of the mainstream and reinvention as a conspiracy theory-laced YouTube Questions Guy. But it was clear even at the time where he was trying to head with it, casting around for a position which could put him back into a prominent role following Sachsgate in the UK (2008) and fleeing the US after breaking up with Katy Perry (2012). Could he pitch as the voice of a new generation of radicals?

The anarchists weren’t terribly helpful for an ego of that magnitude, however (his appearance at an occupation at Sweets Way in 2015 won him few friends – “superficial co-option of our ideas” and “God complex” were the words of another participant). His vague interest lasted longer (he interviewed Ruth Kinna on anarchism in 2019 as part of his hairy Joe Rogan podcasting shtick), but he swiftly moved on first to Ed Miliband’s doomed bid with Labour, then Corbynism. Despite an initially warm reception from the pressed electoral left as it cast around for celebrity allies however, his main involvement there lasted only two years, fading off well before the disastrous 2019 election. His post-2017 output moved towards what, most notably during the pandemic, is now recognisable as his conspiracy theorist era.

In this mould he seems, in some ways*, to still court the general idea of political leftism, an understandable holdover from his earlier dalliances and presumably a useful bridging mechanism for the left’s own conspiracy-minded hinterland. But Covid and lockdown seems to have been the bedrock of a move into tin foil hattery that draws directly from the extremes of US social conservativism. Videos of varying quality with, sometimes, a degree of insight morphed into his current mix, a vague appeal to independent thinking with constant hectoring about his main target “the dying mainstream media” – a focus that at least one of the women who came forward thinks might have been intended to insulate him against what’s happening now.

Allies and enemies

One thing that’s interesting about the situation today is what it reveals about differences in approach between the radical left and right.

In the wake of the Times/Dispatches expose on his behaviour in the 2000s, at the height of his TV power, the left has been largely** picking up the theme of “are we ready to do something systemic about this yet”, if it gets talked about at all. Because let’s face it, no-one was really surprised by a story of the self-proclaimed sex-addict with a long history of unpleasant behaviour taking advantage of his power while at the top of a notoriously sleazy industry. It’s hardly unfamiliar, and unlike in the fever dreams of the far right, we’re not actually big into groomers. That’s not to say the left is always better, the pass given to Julian Assange, in part to facilitate the campaign against his extradition under the Espionage Act, being one example. But it appears some of the worst-behaved men have clocked that help is harder to find from this quarter, and misogynist ideology is rarer from radical left sources.

By contrast, the most militant elements of the right have been astonishingly motivated in their fury over the expose. Everyone from Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson (Brand’s post-Fox interview with the far-right presenter, in which they bond over softball questions, sits front and centre on his channel), to Andrew Tate and GB News regulars have weighed in. Not to decry rape, or the disturbing alleged manipulation and abuse of a 16-year-old by a man twice her age, but to defend Brand on the tissue-thin excuse that The Establishment must want to silence him.

For what reason, one might ask?

Brand has plenty of peers in his particular sphere who have never been Targeted By The Deep State, and of course that’s the case. These people pose no threat at all to the status quo with this weird mix of vaccine poison mongering (yes still), jabber about Bill Gates’ microchipping ambitions and UFO speculation alongside through-the-looking-glass versions of things the left would be generally be perfectly on board with – attacks on big tech, liberal hypocrisy and billionaire power. None of Brand’s output over the last couple of years is particularly new or of much concern to actual billionaires, who’ll take a loudmouth wannabe guru rattling on about conspiracies any day over genuine investigation and challenge. Spectacle acting as flak to misdirect the public is their bread and butter. Not a single one of them, including the CEOs of Pfizer and AstraZeneca, are losing sleep over some guy shouting into a microphone about media conspiracies or peaceful revolutions against the Covid vaccine.

As for concerted cancellation, none of the most powerful social media or trad media sites is controlled by anyone on the left, or even by liberals. Zuckerberg is no Marx. Musk himself owns Twi/X. Youtube is in fact Brand’s preferred platform and quite clearly is not suppressing his videos (though they have demonetised him following the scandal – always trigger happy when saving money that lot). And neither Dispatches (owned by the Tory-controlled government) nor The Times (owned by Rupert Murdoch) are particularly liberal-left strongholds. In fact if the Times has any special agenda here beyond making a buck from a standard celebrity scandal it is most likely the usual one of highlighting the BBC’s poor record over enabling predators, to soften public support for a rival.

Culture cancelled

So why the right-wing leap to defend the indefensible as a liberal Establishment-led anti-free speech cancellation? Because it fits certain needs.

The spectre of an amorphous conspiracy of powerful liberals controlling popular conversation under the banner of Cancel Culture has become a core part of the hard-right victimhood pitch. It gets pulled out again and again as the excuse whenever their morality drum-beating rubs up against the actual behaviour of their leading lights. It has in fact been one of their most powerful recruitment techniques for people prone to bad behaviour, for whenever an “independent thinker” is caught out they are there, directly beneath, with a big net marked “we support you against The Establishment”. And by We, they mean a slightly different set of billionaires – Musk, Trump, the Kochs – alongside a mutually reinforcing ecosystem of grifters.

In this case they ran in perhaps a little too fast. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that Brand has acted appallingly badly towards women and he appears to have no intention of honestly facing up to the allegations against him, instead blaming it on “a serious and concerted agenda to control … my voice”. But it took only that initial Poor Me to pull them from the woodwork, and now they’re there, standing tall for the immoral Id.

This position isn’t new for them, of course. Trump himself is an example of the willingness of the hard right to jettison its supposed probity for the sake of a victimhood stratagem. But by doing so habitually the scene has also put itself in a bind. By presenting itself as specifically anti “cancel culture”, ie. fighting for the right of deeply unpleasant people to not just have a voice, but have that voice amplified, it has drawn in a great number of charismatic and manipulative carpetbaggers.

Such folk don’t suddenly straighten up and fly right simply because you’re providing them with an income. So the excuses have to keep coming. More and more of them, more and more surreal. Tucker didn’t fuck up by pitching obvious inaccuracies and getting his firm sued, he was Targeted By The Establishment. Musk didn’t fuck up by trying to forcibly overlay a hard-right agenda on Twitter and scaring the advertising horses, he was Targeted By The Establishment in the form of er … the Anti Defamation League, for some reason. Lozza Fox didn’t fuck up his career by being an unmitigated arsehole to everyone around him, he was Targeted By The Establishment.

These are obviously ludicrous excuses, taken on their own. The reason these grifters have millions of reasonable folk judging them is because they’ve done things worthy of judgment. But with enough people running interference for you the most blatant foolishness can easily override good sense, and even win a majority victory, aided by the genuine truth that the mainstream media often does have an agenda, often lies for the benefit of the status quo.

The big difference when it comes to the media’s treatment of left and the right though is that in the former case, the media has something to gain from cutting us out. The left calls for systemic economic change that redistributes wealth away from the people who own it, and is comprehensively sidelined from the national conversation as a result. How many socialists do you actually see on TV, let alone anarchists? With the right, on the other hand, it does not. When Tucker is “cancelled” it’s because he cost his bosses money, his odious demonisation of migrants had nothing to do with it. Musk never has been cancelled, despite his complaints. Lozza has his own TV show. Trump became President with a vote which, economically, skewed wealthier than that of Clinton. The right ain’t cancelled, it merely whines about it.

And it does so because this fits a narrative which aims to persuade people who gain nothing from right-wing values and economics that conservativism is on the side of the little guy. The reactionary scene needs to reinforce the idea it is constantly under attack, specifically because it isn’t. The so-called “independent thinking” outriders of the right will thus have another go with this case, potentially pushing Brand to ditch the last of his leftist pretensions in the process.

But that won’t be to do with an Establishment Agenda to curb free speech, it’ll all be part of the grift.


Pic: Brand at the People’s Assembly Against Austerity rally in June 2014, by David B Young

* He often places himself as a “left voice” on the other end of a right-wing spiv, eg. Tucker, Candace Owens or Jordan Peterson, but crucially, never actively challenges what they have to say, merely positing in his initial spiel that they are mutually respecting each others’ differences. This is a “have your cake and eat it” tactic which has made him popular in right-wing circles eager to build legitimacy with appearances beyond their own echo chambers.

** No doubt a handful of people nominally from the left could be found, George Galloway for example, and especially from the anti-vaccine end of things, but they’re not representative let alone topping any bills

There are 29 Comments

oh mark fisher... i'm glad you didn't get to see how this particular arc played out

At most, Brand was indiscretional, he might have throat fucked one particular girl to hard but nothing I am seeing is anything approaching rape, you might have one instance of sexual assault though it does not look particularly premeditated(he was a druggie remember).

I have very mixed feelings on me2. This one of those instances where it is being used cynically.

"WelL aChscHulLy!"

You truly are one of the grossest incels on this website. Always the contrarian. Always defender of the rich white powerful man. I suppose SirEinzige represents the anarchy that anews wants to see in the world.

Congratulations I guess. Enjoy your lifetime of loneliness.

BTW, 'to' is not the same as 'too', brainiac.

Seriously anon gtfo with that nonsense. Being skeptical about certain weaponized aspects of me2, which includes very dubious cyber chivalry, is hardly defending rich white men. I'm actually moderately pro metoo(I think it's been good for porn for example) but there's that other side of it which represents the worst of left puritanical callout culture that began 20 or so years ago. And don't think there aren't dubious definitions of rape and sexual assault that come from that crowd. Some of it is just regret sex that has found something to weaponize. There's also the Assange affair which absolutely should be looked at VERY skeptically. Again, at worst we are talking about grey area indiscretions.

Yes! We must stand together and not let the woke bitches weaponise the me2! If brother Russel throat fucked a particular girl then there's nothing wrong with that and regret after the fact is too bad! Too many brothers are falsely accused by dubious accusations. Everyone basically knows that 9 out of 10 accusations are false weaponisations of me2 to destroy good men.

They will not replace us!

"the pass given to Julian Assange, in part to facilitate the campaign against his extradition under the Espionage Act"

Say what!? The whole character assassination thrown at him was started by two CIA agents who called him out for rape. Of course we can't question the credibility of CIA agents and their claims!

I don't buy the whole saw the writing on the wall so he shifted right wing. The dude had uwu spiritual bullshit going on in his "leftism" for a decade and went that way with all the rest of them. Most people just don't understand the shit going on right in front of them.

Back when he came around most people talking shit on him were just jealous idol worshippers who clearly missed the actual political problems associated.

the anti-globalization movement. That he’s called a right wing grifter is just the mark of intellectually incontinent leftism that is reflecting mimetic tribal ideological warfare.

I’m no fan of the Seattle thing, and there were all kinds of things wrong with Occupy but this does not entail being a right wing grifter. At best Brand is dealing with structural issues that the identitarian intersectional left abandoned years ago. This includes class issues.

I don't know, I'm not convinced that the existence of total idiocy among the left is a motivator for people to move completely opposite. Like, I am never surprised when people end up here or just out of it all cause they realize the typical anarcho clique is full of insufferable people.

But, people who would be sticking crystals up their ass or worshipping naturopathy turning reactionary never surprises me.

Goddamn it... Can the Anews podcast crew allow me to read and impersonate commenters in some online radio drama act, or better do it with others interested so I can finally have a fun ride impersonating SE's absurd smuglord comments?

i look forward to the audition WAV. if we all laugh, you're in.

Meh after all, naah. Got better things to do IRL like laying in the hammock and occasional dumpster poutining. Best wishes to U, my fav nitpicker!

soooo maaaannnnyyyyy niiiiiiiiiiitttssssss

I said out SirEs ecommenra aloud in a very pompous voice and I laughed a weak times due to the sheer ridiculousness. But I will not record it bc I'd rather not be recorded saying that.

Very sad for the Internet

Some vegan members of the species religiously and on dubious moral commands from undisclosed authorities only eat vegetables like lettuce, and go by the name of Wokeists, or Party Poopers, or Sticks in the Mud. They are boring do not have enough orgasms, and are seething with ressentiment, and laugh at ridiculous parodies of folk they hate who live more real and authentic lives. These wokists are devout believers of media news and gossip.

The thing is you boring petty little moralist is that acting appallingly towards women is Brand's schtick. In the early 2000s pre-me-to scene comedy and satire swung back to crude deliberately shocking behavior delivered by faux-personas such as Brand. At home with his wife he reverts back to his real gentlemanly self. With fame and the power of celebrity permitting extra licence to his public image, he did what any working actor does, he amplified his persona to the edge of the existing moral boundaries, and some of the groupies who exist in every celebrity arena jumped onto the cashwagon, some regretting the experience and/or the lack of a financial reward. This is common in the celebrity circuit, and if the pressure of accusations can be maintained and publicized, usually an out of court settlement resolves the whole business with a cash payout and nothing more is heard again, it wasn't really about damaged psychologies, but about money. Sunset Boulevard is full of disgruntled groupoids who just didn't hit the jackpot. That's life in the fast lane, get over it!

^This

We, the Men of the Anews Network, thank you for fighting the good fight and standing up for us and not letting these moralist bitches falsely falsely accuse our brethren!

They will not replace us!

We aRe nOt hUmanIst, wE aRe hUmans, wE aRe nOt AnaRchIst, wE aRe AnaRchs!!

yes truly, he is the supreme gentlesir for which you all simp ...

repulsive little 4chan hobgoblins ... if only putin would hurry up and nuke us all

People calling bullshit on the allegations and putting his behaviour in context does not entail simping for the Brand. I myself am not a fan of his populism though he makes uncontroversial and good points here and there.

here's your post but i fixed it, just one particularly repulsive example of pathetic, cowardly, simping for a millionaire rapist

"he might have [definitely did and admitted it] throat fucked one particular [16 y.o.] girl [that he groomed]"

^ that's you, earlier in this thread, but with my factual additions. hope you choke on that boot you're licking so hard, you subhuman waste of oxygen

Nothing in my post is simping for RB. The 16 year old was of legal age and quite frankly I'm not down with infantalizing people that are historical young adults. You're also using the term grooming which is a term of abuse(especially against queer folk) in a reactionary sex negative epoch. That woman(and she WAS a woman) was of legal age and sufficient agency in that sexual relationship and the parents were in the know. There was NO force whatsoever beyond the throat fucking which MIGHT have been sexual assault. It's not exactly good but it's also a grey area with none of us knowing the full context of the encounter.

And no it's not boot licking you moron. I'm more anti-authoritarian then you are by various standards.

Another poster here seeing this prudish moralist commenting on an anarchist site.
If she didn't consent to the throat fucking she could have always BITTEN DOWN FOR CHRISSAKES! I rest my case!

Oh wOw, this is a new and original, a woke hobo with a snivelling case of moral indignation, lol.

Huh? So does that mean if I went up to lumpy and squeezed his buttock or kissed him on the lips he would indignantly push me away and hysterically accuse me of sexual assault and call the moral cops onto me?! I'm a guy.

'''But Covid and lockdown seems to have been the bedrock of a move into tin foil hattery that draws directly from the extremes of US social conservativism.'''

Freedom still doing their 2020 routine, I see. Ie. if you're not on board with them, the Anarchist Federation UK (lol), and the London Anarchist Bookfair (triple vaxxed or NO ENTRY), then you can't possibly be anarchist.

Also, what are the actual symptoms of " psychological damage or scarring " or "sexual assault "? There are emerging societal standards which demand a snivelling retreat into embarrassed indignation and litigation when one's mouth is kissed or genitals are touched without prior agreement. Wtf is wrong with people, don't they like orgies, don't they like making love, dOn't thEY lOve ORgAsms???

As Schopenhauer pointed out, in Ancient Greece freedom of speech was uncensored, verbal abuse between nobles and peasants was an entertaining aspect of community debate, This was street theatre, why seeth with ressentiment when one can unload one's frustrations, or pursue a romantic goodnatured groping and wrestle with the object of one's desire? Before TV the town square was open to satire, ribald abuse and insult, all entertaining!Only X-tian humanism put an end to the open expression of individual will! It put an end to the processes of creative emotional expression! The end of physiological processes which ensured that the collective psyche remained harmoniously processing the dynamics to a pleasurable joyful life. All gone because philistines!

Add new comment