Martin Jay
His rape case is a lesson for many who wish to challenge the narrative and who think their independence is a shield of some sort.
The Russell Brand case has stunned a nation. Few in the UK, least of all Brand himself, could believe the jury's conclusion to his rape case - not because he doesn't have a reputation for being a sexual predator on a grand scale, even by his own accounts, but because the case itself relied on testimonies only, rather than any solid evidence typical of rape cases, and the incidents went back over 25 years. The court seems to have been swayed by the number of women accusing him of rape or acts of indecency, rather than simply relying on one testimony. But his defence lawyers didn't do a good job of presenting the case of celebrities and how these people lead different lives to the rest of us. Celebrities, particularly young, good-looking men, are overwhelmed with sexual advances from women who are looking for a unique, often profitable experience and often expect something to follow more than simply being shown the door. This behaviour of using these young women for nothing but sexual gratification is both shocking and immoral, but we have to ask ourselves how many of these women were really victims and how many are just bitter and are struggling to cope with how cheap they feel when they left his company. Brand, we are told, gets his drivers to drop them off at Hampstead tube station once he is done with those who came to visit him at his London home.
What we really should be asking ourselves is whether there is something else to the Brand case beyond his decades-long reputation for treating women badly, and why, after 25 years, these allegations have finally seen the light of day. We could also ask how a British court could sentence a man for rape when there is no evidence at all to support it, other than the victims' claims - which police officers will tell you, time after time, are often not reliable and often entirely fabricated for a host of different reasons.
Brand is actually a pattern. A theme keeps repeating itself. Brand is a celebrity who, like Andrew Tate, has a huge following online from young men and was being a considerable thorn in the side for the British and American governments and needed to be shut up once and for all. And in many ways, these categories of celebrities, who present a real threat to the establishment in how they can influence opinions, make it so incredibly easy to be jailed. In the case of both the Tate brothers and Brand, their sexual appetites made them easy prey. Out of all those hundreds of sexual conquests with young women, what percentage would be willing to accuse them of rape, if approached and even presented with incentives ? It only needs a tiny percentage. For Brand, many of us were surprised it didn't happen earlier, given his controversial views on vaccines. But now the UK elite are preparing for a war with Russia, and one of the bucket-list items for the government and MOD must surely be how to deal with the influencers who are going to present problems when it comes to forcing young, unemployed, uneducated men to join the army and fight Russian soldiers, presumably in Ukraine. Brand's views have been noted to be more leaning towards Russia, and it was no doubt felt he would call out the war for what it is: a racket.
What British commentators and journalists seem to always avoid when they report the Brand case is how it would seem that there is an ocean of sexual predators in the UK who are not even being investigated by the British police - or, if they are, are often given an easier time if they are Muslim. How is it possible that Brand is going to spend probably 15 years in a British jail and possibly suffer sexual abuse himself, when there are literally "hundreds" of Pakistani men who are implicated in the grooming gangs scandal in the north of the UK who remain free ? It is naïve and absurd to think that Brand's case was a fair one, and quite axiomatic to anyone with any understanding of how corrupt the police and judiciary are in the UK that an agenda is being played out here - and we should expect more of it against influencers who question the elite's narrative on vaccines, the Ukraine war, EU membership, grooming gangs and corruption in general.
For those who care to bother, it's quite easy to see a pattern of celebrities being arrested on sex crimes. In nearly all cases, we have to assume they either represent a threat through their online influencing, or, in other cases, have simply decided to no longer cooperate with their masters and have lost the protection which comes with the package. This is particularly the case with Hollywood stars who operate in a hedonistic sphere and are easily compromised the moment they clash with studio bosses. Michael Jackson, who died penniless with only $700,000 USD in savings, is now making a fortune for his studio brand, despite being dead. What few point out is that he suddenly became the subject of media accusations of impropriety with children the very same week he fell out with his bosses at Sony. Coincidence ? The Harvey Weinstein story is also very suspect, as it was widely known that he had consensual sex with many of today's leading ladies of the big screen. But isn't it odd how those same ladies, who were ascending the ladder of fame or fortune while working with Weinstein, had nothing to say about having sexual relations with the producer at the time when he cast them in his blockbuster movies ? Did Weinstein fall out with his studio executives ? Probably. Did he rape those actresses ? Unlikely, given that they willingly went to visit him late at night with one clear objective on their minds in a business which is notorious for young actresses sleeping with studio bosses. Hollywood is the most depraved business model there is, and cheap sex is its fuel. We all need to grow up about what Hollywood is and how it operates.
Hollywood protects its own until the moment that the working relationship breaks down, and then that defensive layer is removed. Many get caught in this trap. Gerard Depardieu, Bill Cosby, Sean "Diddy" Combs are others who have also been caught due to believing they were rich enough to protect themselves, rather than relying on the studio bosses and their unique protection racket which they ran. Going rogue comes with a high cost, and none of these celebrities' perverse sexual habits would even have reached the courts if they had not fallen out at some point with their studio bosses.
In the case of the UK, it was the BBC who protected Jimmy Savile for decades, which was also about corruption. Too many people would have lost their careers if the truth had got out. For Brand, he has no protection, as, like the Tate brothers, he believed his notoriety and power would be his main defence. What Tate has in common with Brand is, to their credit, that their arrests prove their true independence from any greater power which offers protection - not studios, political movements, cults, Zionist cash, the industrial military complex, and certainly not the British government or the network of freemasons in London who hold so much power in judiciary matters. They are truly autonomous in their ideologies which they espouse. And unlike in politics, neither had the statutory phalanx of sophists to hand to advise them they were flying too close to the sun.
The difference between Andrew Tate and Russell Brand is that Tate was much smarter and knew it was coming and knew there wasn't much he could do about it. Brand was genuinely shocked when the jury gave their verdict. In the UK, the elite protect themselves and generally are protected against sex cases ever getting to even police attention, let alone getting to a court. In recent years there have been rumours of a number of MPs' sexual deviancy, but somehow the cases are never pursued. But those same elites also go to depraved levels to frame whoever presents themselves as a threat, and often involve the security services of both the UK and U.S. to get their man, which is what is happening now with Peter Mandelson, whom Democrats want to prosecute as part of the Epstein saga.
If you believe Meghan Markle's father really had child porn on his computer to justify his arrest, and how the Daily Mail photographer just happened to be in the right place at the right time to get the shot of his being led away, then you probably also believe that justice was served to Russell Brand. How hard do you think it is to put child porn images on someone's computer ? How hard do you think it is to find a disgruntled ex-lover of a celebrity who has an axe to grind against her former one-night stand ? Brand was a hugely successful influencer who was neither a freemason nor part of a political elite, despite previously seeming to be used shamelessly by Labour figures. His rape case is a lesson for many who wish to challenge the narrative and who think their independence is a shield of some sort. Free speech is overrated.