Home » Destroying Russell Brand

Comments

Destroying Russell Brand — 19 Comments

  1. Destroy a heretic, Brand, and destroy a platform, Rumble, that provides competition to the Left in YouTube. Win Win. Of course using anonymous allegations that can’t be proven or effectively countered, perfect.

    Rules for thee, not for me.

  2. The advertisers are willing to avoid selling product to 1.4 million followers, plus, probably, casual occasional viewers, over unproven anonymous allegations having nothing to do with what Brand is currently saying on Rumble. This doesn’t strike me as too bright. Have these people not seen what happened to Budweiser? It’s not the same, but this may very well increase Brand’s reach.

    I was amused to read that Gavin Newsom is worried about his young son, who is watching Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson.

  3. It’s unlikely the women came forward. They have other things to do with their lives than follow Brand’s politics.
    They were recruited. Given the time frame, there isn’t even any reason for them to have had anything to do with Brand. Can’t be proven, can’t be disproven.

    Now, how about Tara Reade, huh? Guys?

  4. He might be guilty, who knows? He was definitely a smarmy fellow back in the day.

    But, innocent or guilty, I am confident none of these allegations would ever have surfaced had he not publicly and successfully expressed his deviation from woke orthodoxy.

  5. Brand has also been accused of “emotional abuse” as if that is some sort of crime. Brand was obviously a self-centered obnoxious jerk, and one can only assume that this is why women were attracted to him. Some women are drawn to men who are guaranteed to emotionally abuse them, and when they complain about “emotional abuse”, their other complaints cannot be taken very seriously.

  6. There was a very enjoyable mystery program from Australia titled “Dr. Blake Mysteries”. The primary actor was Craig Mclachlan. In 2014 the primary actor did a short live theatre presentation of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. One of the female actors claimed he touched her on the rear end. Five years out of work and in court destroyed his career, but he did finally win the case. Last December he was getting ready for a return to the stage—but, not to worry the dirty girls came up with a new lawsuit which they were threatening. Suffice it to say the new one-man show was canceled ahead of time. Now, the dirty girls have filed a lawsuit against the production company. They simply will not let a straight white man win once they have decided he should be the one they use to prove a lesson.
    *P.S. I hope I have all the dates and details correct. I am pretty close I think!

  7. “The idea that women don’t ever lie is an abomination”

    I am not a misogynist. If you boil it down, men exert influence through both language and physical strength. Women exert influence through language and sex. It is thus reasonable to assume that women, as a group, are more likely to engage in deceit through language than men as a group when it is a question of ‘he-said she-said’. Please don’t throw tomatoes at me.

    “The women are all anonymous.”

    Indeed.

    “Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually
    assaulted her decades ago…”

    Decades ago? Did you file a complaint with the criminal justice authorities? No. Did you file a civil claim? No.

    Aren’t these relaxations of the statute of limitations some sort of constitutional violation in regards to ex-post facto law?

    Here’s Jean Carroll:

    Trump the billionaire with a penthouse and the ability to acquire anything he desires sexually assaulted me in a changing room of a department store.

    When did this happen? I cannot recall. The year? I cannot recall. Here’s $5M. Oh, he bitched about it? Sue him again.

    If you cannot recall the year in which you have been harmed, your claim should be ‘prima facie’ thrown out.

    What about that Johnny Depp case? Turns out she is a lying coprophiliac.

    The MeToo movement has been a joke from the start, with apologies to legitimate rape victims.

    Erronius

  8. What Ackler said @8:11 pm.
    Whenever he surfaced pre-2020 he seemed kind of creepy. Nutty.
    Kept asking myself: Who was this guy, anyway? And why do we have to know about him? And who cares?
    Then, after Biden was elected, he started criticizing the Narrative and—astonishingly, for me, anyway—began to make some sense.

    Yep, Time to BRING HIM DOWN.

  9. Just got back from England. The TV news is all over Brand, 24/7. He is toast. I do not know if it all happened, but doesn’t matter. And by the way he is obnoxious.

  10. Why doesn’t he sue his accusers for defamation? If he wants to play rougher, he can also sue those who republish the defamation. If Miss A says I did a bad thing to her, I sue her for defamation. And if B spreads A’s story, I warn B to stop spreading lies. If B doesn’t stop, I sue B as well.

    These suits may be costly and ultimately unsuccessful, but what have I got to lose? Make them pay. Build a reputation as somebody jealous of his honor and expensive to cross.

  11. Owen:

    I believe that’s what Dershowitz did to his accuser. Thing is, Dershowitz could prove he never even was anywhere near where his accuser said he was. With Brand, he apparently had sex with these women (and plenty of others), and so I doubt he could prove he was never around them. It just becomes she said he said about something that happened 15 years ago. That’s more difficult.

    At the moment, Brand’s accusers are also anonymous, at least to the public. I’m going to assume he knows who they are, but perhaps he doesn’t – at least, yet.

  12. Neo: I hadn’t followed the Brand story so, apologies, I did not know that the accusers are (as yet) unnamed. So this really is the sleaziest version of an ambush. Hard to sue those who hide in the shadows. Maybe one could go after the media peddling such garbage, but then we have the NYT v. Sullivan defense (“I can’t tell you who told me, but I honestly think she’s telling the truth, and Brand is a public figure (because I dragged him into the public eye by putting out the story); so no defamation, right?”).

    Disgusting business. As you and other commenters say, this practice comes at a cost. Not just to the target, not just to the publishers, but to all future victims whose stories are now subject to a stronger presumption that they, too, are just making it up. And the social capital account dwindles: all of us must live in an uglier, less-trustworthy world.

  13. Whatever happened may have happened in a druggy haze for both parties. That and time and politics can make memories uncertain and the truth even harder to discover.

    #MeToo has another meaning. Once someone comes up with plausible or half-way plausible accusations, other accusers appear saying “Me too, me too,” whether anything happened or not.

  14. I decry this Meee Tooo BS & see it as partially a byproduct of the suck-up-to-women-and-minorities zeitgeist.

    I’m not into “celebrities” & never heard of this guy. I don’t care for men with greasy long hair who wear what look like women’s shirts.

  15. I believe the situation with Russel Brand and others fits the old aphorism coined by Sir Acton perfectly, that is “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
    That is the power to assassinate a character is an absolute power, with no consequence for lying. (In court, such would be perjury.)
    How many corpses with reputations destroyed by falsehoods need to lie about, stinking, before such BS is ever called out for what it is, a false allegation?
    Yes, I do have personal experience with similar allegations, on a much smaller scale of course. In a university setting. With anonymity promised. Nothing ever in writing, verbal complaints that can be denied or reworded if challenged. And test the accusers are all female, and me, a male. I guess I need to wear a bodycam whenever interacting with women on campus.

  16. This is a control mechanism that, as a bonus, puts the right in a ridiculous situation. The left debased the culture. Once Russell Brand participated in the debased culture, they owned him. He sealed his fate when he strayed from the leftist orthodoxy.

    With Brand in particular, though, there is a second benefit for the left. The way that the left has done Russell Brand stinks to high heaven. But the world doesn’t do nuance anymore. Defending Brand is going to be perceived as defending a sexual predator. Technically, it is at least defending a serial cad. So the right has to fight the left’s degradation of society and then also fight their abusively selective #metoo moves like this, but somehow do so without appearing to defend the left’s degradations.

    Good luck to us. We need it.

  17. A crazy idea, but…

    I wonder if countersuits could be launched by men, claiming that these women had seduced and enticed them into sexual relations against their will, 10-40 years ago; in other words sexually (mentally?) “assaulted” them. If these suits were not allowed, it would be sex discrimination!

    Maybe some preemptive anti-lawfare test cases?

    Sauce for the gander…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>