Not his humor, certainly. I still don’t find him funny. But it’s that same provocativeness and vulgarity, paired with a surprising amount of intellect, that’s made him such an effective political commentator. He’s not a man who tolerates bulls**t and is very good at breaking down the hypocrisy and lies he sees around him. Particularly in media and politics, which are effectively one and the same, these days. Media bias is of particular interest to him, especially now.

Someone being labelled a “conspiracy theorist” doesn’t mean much to me. It gets thrown around so often that it barely even registers in my mind. Unfortunately, it’s much the same with sexual assault allegations. I’m one of those people who assumes at least half the powerful people in media and politics are sex pests anyway. But combine the two, and it’s a different story. When I see someone accused of being a conspiracy theorist and a sex pest, then I take notice.

You see, I’m also one of the people who believes the harder the media tries to crack down on someone, the more you should pay attention to what they’re saying. It’s funny, perhaps even suspicious, how celebrities who speak out against the media tend to get labelled as “crackpots” and suddenly stop appearing in anything bigger than a made-for-TV Hallmark movie. Even funnier, and more suspicious, is how many of them also tend to have people from their past come from out of the blue to simultaneously accuse them of sexual assault.

Russell Brand, as I’m sure you’ve heard, is one such person. The “conspiracy theorist” label has done little to actually harm him because he doesn’t rely on old media like film or television as much as most celebrities. Instead, he maintains an extremely strong following on the Internet (his YouTube channel has 6.71 million subscribers at the time of writing) where he can operate largely independently and is harder to blacklist.

The “sex pest” label, on the other hand, is a bit trickier for him to deal with.

According to The Christian Post:

. . .a joint investigation by The Times of London and Channel 4 revealed that four women alleged the comedian had sexually assaulted them at the height of his career between 2006 and 2013. At the time, Brand was a BBC and Channel 4 presenter.

One report from The Sunday Times alleged Brand assaulted a then-16-year-old girl — who was over the age of consent in the U.K. — during a brief and allegedly “emotionally and sexually abusive” relationship, while another woman told The Times that Brand had raped her at his Los Angeles home in 2012 but she did not file a report with the police.

These allegations have resulted in his management company dumping him, his publishing company dumping him, the BBC removing some of his content from circulation, YouTube demonetizing his account, a women’s and children’s charity cutting ties with him, and a lawsuit. Keep in mind, this is all based entirely on allegations that, despite a second police investigation into him, have yet to be proven. He even voluntarily submitted himself to police questioning.

But if there’s a small glimmer of goodness in all of this, it’s that the experience seems to be bringing the lifelong hedonist closer to Christ. He’s been expressing his interest in Christianity for some time now after he finally got sober. He recently uploaded an image on Facebook of the Bible and The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis, a book which The Christian Post says:

. . .addresses the question of why a good God allows people to suffer and explores how human suffering fits within the broader context of Christian belief.

I genuinely hope things turn out well for Russell Brand. We need more people with voices like his calling out the media. Regardless of how things turn out, however, I hope he continues on his journey to find Christ. I still don’t think he’s funny, though.

“If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community,” YouTube said in a statement.

Mr. Brand, a former self-confessed sex addict, was accused of sexual and emotional abuse that allegedly took place several years ago by four women in an investigation by the Times of London, The Sunday Times, and Channel 4 “Dispatches.”

The 48-year-old actor denied the charges in a video he shared with his 6.6 million YouTube followers over the weekend.

“These allegations pertain to the time when I was working in the mainstream, when I was in the newspapers all the time, when I was in the movies. And as I’ve written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous,” Mr. Brand said. “Now, during that time of promiscuity, the relationships I had were absolutely always consensual.”

A day after the allegations were reported, police in the UK said they had received a report of a sexual assault allegedly involving Mr. Brand in September 2003.

The Rise of Financial Deplatforming

The accusations against Mr. Brand are serious, and could eventually lead to criminal charges, both in the United States and the UK. But at this point, they’re just that: accusations. This is one of the problems with #MeToo trials in the court of public opinion. The accused are presumed guilty and prematurely punished.

Consider another celebrity who famously found himself accused: Johnny Depp. In 2018, the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star was summarily dropped by Disney following accusations of domestic violence made by his ex-wife, Amber Heard. It didn’t matter that Mr. Depp said the allegations were untrue, or that he had served without incident for more than a decade as the lead actor in a franchise that had generated more than $3 billion for Disney.

Though nearly ruined, Mr. Depp would go on to win a defamation suit against Ms. Heard, receiving a multi-million-dollar settlement. (The actor appears to have taken Disney’s betrayal personally, evidenced by his decision to not return to the popular “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise.)

YouTube and Disney, of course, have the right to associate with whomever they choose, but taking actions that destroy people’s livelihoods on mere accusations is a serious business, one that creates a dangerous incentive.

In her new book You Will Own Nothing, the bestselling author Carol Roth writes of a new financial world that’s emerging in which governments and corporations increasingly decide what behaviors are good and what behaviors are bad.

While the First Amendment prohibits the government from taking criminal actions against people for sharing “bad” opinions, the government can encourage corporations to take direct actions against citizens that inflict serious social and—more importantly—financial harm.

YouTube demonetization, which is relatively common, is just one example. Bank account deplatforming, a method that’s increasingly common in the United States and Canada, is another.

“Financial deplatforming, or banking censorship, will be a common lever governments and companies reach for when it comes to censorship of political opinions,” said Annelise Butler in a 2022 Heritage Foundation article.

Ms. Butler said companies acquiescing to government requests to demonetize and censor users are “mirroring those of China’s social credit system.”

Interestingly Ms. Roth makes the same comparison in “You Will Own Nothing,” adding that she would have laughed off such a thing 10 years ago.

“Given that we are so close to social credit, with the social acceptance of moral judgment outside the legal system and the technical means to collect and analyze information at scale, the Chinese system provides a frightening road map,” Ms. Roth wrote.

This is what makes the government’s incestuous relationship with Big Tech and other companies so dangerous. Government officials can lean on companies to coerce them to punish dissent and Wrongthink, something it has done with great enthusiasm.

None of this is to say Russell Brand is guilty or innocent of the accusations against him, of course. We don’t know.

What we do know is that during the pandemic, Mr. Brand emerged as one of the leading voices against the government’s COVID regime, and he later became one of the most outspoken anti-war voices on YouTube. (We also know the FBI has a long history of using sexual indiscretions to control and silence powerful people.)

Protecting Its Own Interests

There’s no evidence that Mr. Brand, who managed to survive the 2017 #MeToo movement with his reputation intact despite his promiscuous history, became a target for his outspoken views. But the Twitter Files revealed that both the White House and federal agencies spent considerable effort and resources attempting to influence social media companies to shape public opinion and silence critics of government policies.

In some cases, individual influencers were targeted, including independent journalist Alex Berenson, who is suing President Joe Biden and Pfizer executives who, according to his lawsuit (pdf), “specifically targeted Mr. Berenson for removal. The conspirators did not simply ask Twitter to remove a specific post Mr. Berenson made. Rather they pushed Twitter to ban him entirely, an unconstitutional prior restraint on his speech.”

This shows the great lengths the state will go to to punish those who threaten their agendas, something the economist Murray Rothbard once observed, noting that the state inherently is an institution “largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects.”

All of this is made possible by the state’s expanding influence over Big Tech and the centralization of the global financial system.

Mr. Brand’s case shows that mere accusations are all it takes to leave someone suddenly demonetized.

“This is the informal social credit system that I talked about in ‘You Will Own Nothing’, coming after your sources of income at their discretion,” Ms. Roth wrote on X following Mr. Brand’s demonetization. “You are not ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in the big tech sphere or the court of public opinion.”

What few seem to realize is that this is likely a feature of the emerging financial order, not a bug.

About the Author

Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at the Foundation for Economic Education.

As a quick recap, here’s what has happened so far. Brand was accused by four anonymous women in a British media hit piece of sexually assaulting them over a decade ago. His YouTube account was demonetized. The British government was caught pressuring other platforms to do the same. Now, a concerted effort is underway to suppress messages of support while amplifying condemnation, both on social media and in the news.

There have been no criminal complaints made nor charges filed.

This has nothing to do with sexual assault allegations in the press. In fact, this doesn’t really have anything to do with Russell Brand on a individual level. He’s simply a vessel through which the powers-that-be are accomplishing two things.

First, they’re sending the message to others who may challenge the prescribed globalist/leftist/authoritarian narratives on topics like the Covid “vaccines,” the war in Ukraine, and government censorship. The message is this: “We will destroy you if you get big enough to become a nuisance.”

Second, this is a trial balloon to see how the general public responds. You and I don’t matter. They know that freedom-lovers will denounce the efforts against Brand whether we like him or not, whether we believe him or not, because he is being destroyed without trial or even rebuttal. What the powers-that-be want to know is if the indoctrinated masses can be made to accept this type of government overreach.

As Off-Guardian pointed out, it’s ironic that the British government is leading the charge because this type of government behavior has been condemned since the Magna Carta:

No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

Clearly, they are trying to ruin Russell Brand.

Unfortunately, it seems that both of their tests are proving to be successful. While freedom scored a minor win when video platform Rumble told the British Government to shove it, it’s crystal clear that he will feel financial pain from this. More importantly, his reputation is getting trashed and that’s pretty much all he has left to drive his populist message. Anyone who starts spreading a message like Brand’s as it pertains to freedom is now aware they could be targeted as well.

As for testing the reaction of the masses, it’s been abysmal. Most in “conservative” and even alternative media are taking a hard pass on the issue. For some, it’s due to Brand’s history and politics. After all, he may be espousing freedom-loving rhetoric today but he’s still a leftist at heart. He’s still a socialist even if he’s red-pilled on some issues.

But those who could and should oppose the treatment of Brand (as compared to actually supporting him, which is not required in order to recognize the nefarious plot against him) are mostly silent for one reason and one reason only: They don’t want to get cancelled with him. One editor that I spoke to off the record told me her conservative outlet wouldn’t touch the story because “it’s a bad look to support him now if it comes out later that he’s a rapist.”

It doesn’t matter if you believe Brand’s vehement denials or not. At this point he has been accused in the press of crimes and should not be under attack by at least one government as a result. If a platform like YouTube wants to ban him, that’s a private issue. But the fact that governments are getting involved in his cancelation tells us that this is part of a larger plan.

By no means am I calling on anyone to support him. Personally, I’m not a fan even though I agree with a few of his recent stances. But I do believe it behooves those who are opposed to tyranny to call out the fact that governments are trying to cancel him. They generally don’t do that to anyone who’s been accused in the press of a crime. The fact that they’re doing it to Brand means this has nothing to do with what he allegedly did and everything to do with what he represents to them today.

He’s a threat to the narrative and the agenda, so they decided he needs to be neutralized. But getting rid of Russell Brand today is less important to them than preventing types of Russell Brands from emerging in the future.

Sound off about the plot against Russell Brand on my Substack.

I am not going to dispute the validity of the sexual assault allegations against him because the “evidence” presented could be made up or it could be completely real. I’m not qualified to judge based on the limited information available. But considering the Jeffrey Epstein list has been completely buried with nary a corporate media journalist asking any questions, it’s conspicuous that Brand suddenly has these accusations against him at the height of his influence.

He’s opposed to Big Government, Big Pharma, the Ukrainian grift, and tyranny in general. Politically he’s more of a Neo-Marxist/Libertarian hybrid, if that makes any sense at all. So while I agree with many of his stances on personal freedom and transparency of government, I’m no fan of some of his other stances. This is a long preface, but it’s necessary because it’s prudent to understand WHY the powers-that-be would go after him before deciding whether this is a smear job or if he’s really facing truths being told by victims. Again, I don’t know enough to judge.

So let’s start with what is being claimed by the British news outlets who put the documentary together, as reported by Amanda Prestigiacomo at Daily Wire:

The Sunday Times report said four women, whose names have not been disclosed, have accused Brand of sexual misconduct from 2006 to 2013, which was the height of Brand’s mainstream fame. One woman claims Brand raped her, while another alleged victim, who is now 31, says Brand sexually assaulted her when she was 16 years old (the age of consent in the UK).

“Amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks, are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute,” Brand said on video platform Rumble.

“These allegations pertain to the time when I was working in the mainstream, when I was in the newspapers all the time, when I was in the movies. And as I’ve written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous,” he continued. “Now, during that time of promiscuity, the relationships I had were absolutely always consensual.”

Notably, the allegations against Brand came from a joint investigation by The Sunday Times, The Times, and Channel 4 Dispatches.

“There are witnesses whose evidence directly contradicts the narratives that these two mainstream media outlets are trying to construct, apparently, in what seems to me to be a coordinated attack,” Brand countered. “I feel like I’m being attacked, and obviously they are working very closely together.”

Brand, at the time of the video, said he had heard from one media outlet and one TV company.

The Sunday Times and The Times said it gave Brand eight days to respond to the allegations, and noted that Brand’s legal team responded by taking issue with the media outlets intentionally choosing to anonymize the names of his accusers, likely making it more difficult for Brand to refute directly.

Brand’s team also told the media that this was a “concerted campaign” and that there is a “deeply concerning agenda to all this, namely the fact that he is an alternative media broadcaster competing with mainstream media.”

According to the report, one woman is claiming Brand raped her in his Los Angeles home. She says she was treated at a rape crisis center on the same day of the alleged rape, and The Sunday Times suggested medical records confirm this. The report also said via text message, Brand replied “very sorry,” when the woman texted, “When a girl say[s] NO it means no.”

Another woman, who is now 31 years old, says she was still in school when she was in a relationship with Brand for about three months. The accuser says Brand referred to her as “the child” and once “forced his penis down her throat,” the report said.

Another woman claims Brand sexually assaulted her and then threatened her with legal action if she were to talk about the allegation. And a fourth woman says Brand sexually assaulted her and was physically and emotionally abusive.

Brand posted his denial video to X (formerly Twitter) as well, where it racked up nearly 32 million views in a matter of hours.

This is happening pic.twitter.com/N8zIKLbJN2

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 15, 2023

Elon Musk pointed out that Brand is a threat to corporate media, Of course. They don’t like competition., “Of course. They don’t like competition.’

Of course. They don’t like competition.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 15, 2023

Tucker Carlson took a different angle, noting that Brand was a threat to known agendas of the New World Order. He posted, “Criticize the drug companies, question the war in Ukraine, and you can be pretty sure this is going to happen.”

Criticize the drug companies, question the war in Ukraine, and you can be pretty sure this is going to happen. https://t.co/3T7GjBddA5

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) September 16, 2023

Both Musk and Carlson would know because they’ve been targeted by the powers-that-be as well. The methods of taking down enemies of the globalists differ for each individual. It makes sense that they would target Brand with sexual assault accusations because it’s easier to suspend disbelief of such things when Hollywood celebrities are involved. Nobody would believe Tucker Carlson sexually assault four women just as nobody would believe Russell Brand was manipulating shareholders of his companies.

In other words, the powers-that-be (New World Order, Deep State, Globalist Elite Cabal, whatever you want to call them) personalize their smear campaigns to maximize believability.

Therein lies the key to takedowns of powerful people orchestrated by the powers-that-be. They know how to craft a narrative that keeps enough people in the dark until the damage is done. A great example of his was the Russian collusion hoax they used against Donald Trump. It has now been revealed that not only was it all made up, but more importantly they KNEW it was made up when they used it against him. But how many people have gone to jail over the destructive series of lies that plagued our nation for nearly four years? Exactly.

That’s their playbook. This is why it’s important to be extremely skeptical of the timing of this documentary hit piece against Brand. Whether any of it is true or not, the powers-that-be wield facts and fiction like weapons of individual destruction.

In the conservative sphere, there seems to be two dominant types of responses to the accusations. Many if not most are keeping quiet. They don’t want to be seen supporting an accused rapist but they also don’t want to speak out in case it’s all a setup.

The other group are those who aren’t buying the narrative or the charges. Here are some examples of those people:

Alex Jones has personal experiences with Russell Brand.

Alex Jones on Russell Brand. pic.twitter.com/taZKIUMSzF

— Epstein's Sheet. (@meantweeting1) September 16, 2023

Ian Miles Cheong said the fact that these alleged crimes are in the news and not in the courts is telling.

Fact is, they have no case or they would’ve gone to the courts by now instead of smearing Russell Brand in the press.

This whole thing smells as bad as what they did to Julian Assange, Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson and so many others. What do all these men have in common? They threaten the press. They have more influence than the media—and that cannot be allowed to stand.

The message is simple: if you speak against the narrative, the legacy media will come for you.

Fact is, they have no case or they would’ve gone to the courts by now instead of smearing Russell Brand in the press.

This whole thing smells as bad as what they did to Julian Assange, Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson and so many others. What do all these men have in common? They… pic.twitter.com/COJKwsH7vn

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 16, 2023

Dr. Simon Goddek believes it’s a conspiracy to silence Brand.

It’s a disgrace what the establishment is doing to @rustyrockets. Instead of addressing the criminal activities of the Biden family or focusing on the Epstein client list, they are trying to silence those who question the global agenda.

I can relate to how he feels now, having lost three jobs and faced the wildest accusations. They are even trying to take everything I own here in Brazil, especially after I had to leave my homeland, the Netherlands, due to political repression two years ago.

However, I will not stop standing up for freedom, and I’m certain that my fellow fighters, including Russell Brand, won’t either. And to the authoritarian mainstream journalists trying to cancel us, remember: He who laughs last, laughs best.

It’s a disgrace what the establishment is doing to @rustyrockets. Instead of addressing the criminal activities of the Biden family or focusing on the Epstein client list, they are trying to silence those who question the global agenda.

I can relate to how he feels now, having… https://t.co/SOWtErn33e

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddeketal) September 16, 2023

Journalist Jacqui Deevoy said the documentary is all very suspicious.

I watched the Channel 4 documentary on Russell Brand. All highly suspect.

I know if I pitched an idea for an inflammatory documentary to a TV company and said all the main contributors were going to be anonymous with their faces in shadow or played by actors, I’d have the idea flung back in my face.

The stories told may or may not be true but trial by TV is never fair.

Whether he’s guilty or not, this film is clearly a hit piece. A neatly orchestrated attack. Brand is getting too popular, is way too ‘over target’ and has to be removed.

And this is how they do it.

I watched the Channel 4 documentary on Russell Brand. All highly suspect.

I know if I pitched an idea for an inflammatory documentary to a TV company and said all the main contributors were going to be anonymous with their faces in shadow or played by actors, I’d have the idea… pic.twitter.com/PtLKCM26Iu

— Jacqui Deevoy (@JacquiDeevoy1) September 17, 2023

A woman who had a relationship with Brand said she was interviewed for the documentary but her story wasn’t used because it didn’t match the narrative.

“They weren’t going to use my story because it didn’t fit the narrative.”

Woman who claims she spent a “wonderful” weekend with Russell Brand defends the actor.

"They weren't going to use my story because it didn't fit the narrative."

Woman who claims she spent a "wonderful" weekend with Russell Brand defends the actor. pic.twitter.com/hzV7jIe5Wn

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) September 16, 2023

Vince Langman believes he identified the video that encapsulates why they’re going after Brand now.

This video clip is why Russell Brand is being attacked right now pic.twitter.com/W4pB0vz70m

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) September 16, 2023

Simon Ateba found a different video that supports Elon Musk’s perspective that corporate media fears him, and for good reason.

This video clip might also be why they are going after Russell Brand, many say. WATCH pic.twitter.com/ImxsJoq0Ka

— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) September 17, 2023

Crime Versus Smear

If criminal charges had been filed by one or more of the alleged victims, things might look differently for Russell Brand. But the way things stand with a corporate media narrative spun specifically to take Russell Brand down, I can’t help but to question all of it. Serial sexual abusers don’t stop, but this in-depth media investigation couldn’t find anything newer than a decade old.

That’s very suspicious. It has the same odor as accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

Powerful men in and out of Hollywood are protected from sexual assault accusations almost as much as DC politicians and bureaucrats are protected from corruption accusations. It’s no coincidence that Russell Brand is the target today whether he did what they claim or not.

This is about sending a message. They don’t like “insiders” who switch sides. They especially do not like anyone who acquires enough influence to start waking “normies” out of their globalist slumber. They want us to be sheep and anyone loud enough to make some of the sheep start asking questions is the greatest threat to the New World Order.

Some may say the timing is off because they could have used these accusations against him before he became so popular. That’s not how they work. This isn’t just about stopping someone who’s countering their narrative. It’s about sending a message to others who may try to do the same thing. By trying to destroy him at his prime level of influence, they do great damage to the movement as a whole.

Brand has shared many compelling messages against our enemies. That they’ve branded him as an accused rapist means many who agree with him will still dump their support whether they believe the accusations or not. Like I said, most on the freedom-loving side will abandon or ignore him so they’re not perceived as supporting a sexual criminal.

I support many of his messages, especially his recent attacks against the globalists. If it’s proven that he’s a rapist, I won’t support him as a person but his messages still ring true. So until they prove his crimes, I’m going to assume this is a Deep State plot to take him down and will support him wholeheartedly.

What do you think? Join the conversation at my Substack.

“Biden’s just reclassified the Kennedy documents 60 years after his assassination. No one, even peripherally involved is still alive. So what could possibly be the sources and methods that we are supposedly showing the world by declassifying?” Carlson, a co-founder of the Daily Caller and Daily Caller News Foundation, asked during an interview with actor and podcast host Russell Brand.

“These are so outdated, they’re irrelevant. They were using disappearing ink in 1963. So why in the world would we be continuing to hide the truth about the Kennedy assassination 60 years later?” Carlson continued.

Former President Donald Trump promised in May to release “the remaining portion” of classified materials on the 1963 killing of the president if elected again in 2024. In 2017, he released 2,800 documents related to the assassination and imposed a three-year deadline on other files.

President Joe Biden released additional documents in 2021 and 2022, but critics said that Biden was refusing to be fully transparent. The National Archives released additional documents on June 30 of this year.

“The answer is obvious: Because it implicates not individuals, but institutions, and reveals them as complicit in a murder, and in the overthrow of the U.S. government,” Carlson said.

“Secrecy is incompatible with democracy. How can I — I’m running the government but you can’t tell me what the government’s doing?” Carlson added later. “That’s — that’s not democracy, that’s — it’s something else and don’t insult me by calling it a democracy because it’s very much not.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].