Thank you for speaking truth, seeing all sides of the situation from every angle, this is extremely rare! We have a lot of hypocritical beliefs and behaviors which seem to be getting exponentially worse as Society shifts further away from believing in truth, and into the subjective quackery of “lived experience?” The madhouse doors have been ripped off and it’s every person for themselves, with no care or concern on how this behavior destroys all of our lives!
I don’t see a shift away from this primitive thinking though, too bad articles like this aren’t seen by a greater audience, but then, in today’s Woke insane assylum, would it make anyone more rational, not sure?!
The allegations against Brand are coming from the media, not the police. The media can just make this shit up from whole cloth. The whole 'if he is guilty' question is playing along with their narrative - the accusers have no way of proving he is, and he has no way of proving he isn't. Effectively a person's answer will be a reflection of what they think of Brand, hence all the highlighting of shocking things he's said in the past. Unless he said "I spat in this girl's mouth the other day", it's irrelevant.
The accusations have already had their intended effect, in that his YouTube channel has been demonetised and now lots of people think he might be a rapist. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but if he raped anyone, they should have gone to the police at the time. This has nothing to do with justice
I completely agree that the allegations are impossible to verify and that crimes should be handled by the police and not the media. The story was vaunted for having hard evidence of rape in that one of the women went to a clinic in which they took samples from her. However, I'm sure Brand would say she willingly had sex with him, so what does that sample really prove, other than what they both agree on, which is they had sex? It's a sleight of hand.
But the allegations against him are culturally relevant, hence my essay. 😀
As a trans widow, ex-wife of a man I discovered had been secretly crossdressing from sometime midway through my second pregnancy, I collect data on our experiences. What disturbs me most is the story of Aine-Liv (pseudonym) from my YouTube channel, Trans Widow Ute Heggen. Aine-Liv was brutally raped after her husband, in his new "lingerie" attempted to strangle her. Their infant child was present. She ran with the baby, barefoot, out onto the street and strangers helped her report these crimes and call relatives to pick her up. This was an assault and rape, reported within 24 hours, with proof; photographs of the bruising on her neck were collected by police. She provided clothing with DNA evidence. A few months later, after husband has now "officially declared" he's female, the police came knocking on her mother's door to say they "don't have enough evidence to charge" the man with those crimes.
Wow, about an hour ago I was just ruminating on the hypocrisy of the left both celebrating things like BDSM while going after Brand for his behavior. I still recall Howard Stern's "E" show in which he was celebrated for things like using magic marker to highlight problem areas on semi-nude strippers or throwing pies at them. What was all that about? A deranging of people and/or a giant set-up to take these men down later (or blackmail them)? An excuse to enact censorship down the road? Hard to know what to think.
this feels like a case of the tail wagging the dog.
in most abuse expose's, the reporter starts with a police investigation, a lawsuit or from getting a tip from an insider or a victim themselves.
it seems what happened here was none of those. they started with the hypothesis that Brand is a predator, then worked backwards to find some victims (one who worked or works at Channel 4).
needless to say, this is all highly suspect and looks to be a coordinated attack. apparently this story has been in the works for at least a year and a half...just waiting for the right time to drop...
It's truly nuts to me that these women spent *years* investigating this. Why?? Why is Brand so important that he deserves such a lengthy investigation? He was a dude who was famous in the mainstream a decade ago.
His YouTube conspiracy theory channel was very good. I hated everything about the man from his time in the MSM BUT a friend said 'Try his channel he has changed and it is good stuff."
So i did, and I was absolutely stunned at how erudite he was. At what appeared to be hard evidence of all the misbehavior of Governments, Corporations etc. He even repeatedly confessed as to just how horrible a person he had been and it struck me here was a modern 'Damascus Road' conversion, and a truly repentant Brand.
Sadly, or perhaps, more accurately, uncharitably, I could never dissociate him from his previous life (St Paul was lucky I wasn't around at the time I guess, I might have objected to all his letters had I been on the end of one!) so never became a cult follower.
However, what little I saw of his performances, I could well imagine the MSM, Corporate world and Politicians soon felt he was just too good to leave alone and so began the long haul to hoist him with his own petard. The very one they had admired so much when they promoted him and leeched off his depraved former self.*
* I take him at his word that he did see the light and reform.
Yes, exactly. Apparently hundreds of 'potential victims' were interviewed in order to ferret out a small number of relatively minor instances of possible 'abuse/victimization.' Brand has always preferred consensual dalliances and this does not fit the narrative he was to be targeted with. The point was to de-legitimize him and his messaging which is anti-authoritarian, encouragement of community building and spiritual connection and awareness. What especially could not be tolerated was his shining a spotlight on the military-industrial, and medical/pharma-industrial complexes and their dramatically destructive power and influence over our realities, et al. This article breaks it down really well: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1703457208699142607.html
That's terrible. Also I watched that clip from one of his former paramour. She had nothing bad to say about Brand. Now I believe the media even less. I've never been on social media so I wouldn't have known of it, but for you. Thanks
Well argued! A plague on both their [the Right and the Left's] houses.
What I find so remarkable is just how unremarkable these charges are. Seeing him with Katy Perry was like seeing a loathsome cockroach (pun intended) on the face of a beautiful flower. His then-admitted actions should have - but didn't - disbar him from further celebrity. And now - over a decade later - we have an expose of what was almost public knowledge when the incidents are claimed to have happened. What passes for journalism today would have to improve to be abysmal! Are there no more current scandals to monger? DiCaprio? Gere? ...
It is perhaps not surprising that Dame Dinenage acted to "protect the masses" (i.e., punish those whom she doesn't like) by attempting to deny Brand's fundamental rights. So many of the Remainers were and are elitists. They warned the proles that Britain's economy would tank if it left the EU. Today's economic climate gives that the lie - the EU is tanking while the UK is doing some better.
Best of all in your piece was the acknowledgement of the need for societal norms. I would argue that without such norms - fixed poles to gauge our conduct - we cannot claim to have a culture, in any real sense. When we allowed Brand's conduct in the Aught's to be normalized, we signaled that our multi-culture was really no culture at all.
I agree with most of what you say except, I don't think you should rule out that he may have sincerely atoned for his behaviour. He was clearly an addict when this was all going on, and on principle I think people *can* change for the better and should be given a second chance. Of course, when it comes to celebrities there is no way of knowing how sincere they really are.
Jenny, I've never read anything by you before. I thoroughly enjoyed your article. Very thought provoking. While Brand was a disgusting person, I agree he has probably our grown this phase of his life. I don't think you can criminalize such conduct, no matter how disgusting, unless we are to once again adopt some religious moral code that condemns such actions, which is highly unlikely. I'm shocked that something that happened 20 years ago can lead to a criminal conviction with such little hard evidence. Old text messages? Ridiculous. That actor Masterson will serve 30 years to life in such a case. What happened to requiring "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". All of the folks, both the men & women involved in these cases are revolting human beings, but not necessarily criminals.
Hi Gary, welcome! I agree with you, because criminalisation ought to be used sparingly, since it will invariably end up being used against the innocent at some point, with consequences that are arguably worse than letting a guilty person walk free. That's what makes sex accusations so incredibly difficult. The behaviour might be reprehensible, but should it be criminal?
I just argued that same point. That’s why we have a Statute of Limitations in the US, although it’s honored in the beach more often lately. Unfortunately I’m told Britain has no such law, which surprises me.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the police have charged him with anything, yet. So far just trial by media and pressure from gov't to "protect the public". They didn't like what he's been saying lately and are making an example of him (in the vein of Jordan Peterson; I know the situations are totally different but the ulterior motives are the same). Of course the need of future hatchet jobs will diminish with the Online Safety Bill preventing anyone becoming a pesky mosquito on the backside of govt in the first place.
They are given platforms for their behaviour by the likes of the BBC and ITV. In fact I think the first time I came across Brand 'live' was on the Jonathan Ross show on ITV. It wasn't something I wished to repeat so I avoided anything to do with him or Ross for that matter.
I think he has, as well. But that seems beside the point at this point. He's caught up in the "cancel" contraption - one so convolutedly ludicrous that it would embarrass even a Rube Goldberg. Input - one flawed person. Spin, fold, mutilate - and who cares if anything comes out?
Sin has been around for a very long time (as Scripture says, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"), but not that long ago people at least knew what to do even if they did not always do it. We would do well to return to a world where chastity outside of marriage and fidelity in marriage matter.
I agree. I wish humans could discover, once again, the spiritual/psychological/emotional benefits of chastity (whether they believe in God or not). I really don't know that much about Russell (he always struck me as a somewhat insane individual); but I get the impression that he's a person who, not too long ago, "found God" and then tried to live a more "God-focused" life after giving up his drugs, alcohol, and sex addictions. However, even if that's the case, he may not have given up his addiction to being in the Lime Light (and, if so, maybe all of this is happening in order to encourage him to release that addiction as well). I'll be praying for him, for his continued transformation into who the person God wishes him to be. I do find it highly suspicious that his head ended up on the World's Chopping Block at this time, after he had gained so many online followers who, from what I've read, don't seem to support the narrative of our world's "Dark Puppet Masters" (which is why I'm praying for the the souls of the Dark Puppet Masters as well).
“However, even if that's the case, he may not have given up his addiction to being in the Lime Light (and, if so, maybe all of this is happening in order to encourage him to release that addiction as well).”
I couldn’t agree more and this is why I think he still has responsibility, presently, for this situation and I don’t agree that he has reformed his ways completely. He has let go of a lot vice and he doesn’t have to be a perfect person, but the man posts hours and hours and hours of monologues to You Tube with click bait titles. He talks about people joining him in the great awakening... it’s culty and heretical. The ability to monetize that behavior, that sinful behavior, is being taken away from him and I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to happen to him. I think he will probably come to see it that way too.
He says things on YouTube that you don't agree with; you believe, therefore, that demonetizing him as a result of completely unrelated, unproved, unprovable accusations is a good thing. I smell woke.
I have these "thats why" moments... moments when pieces of the puzzle fall into place right before my eyes...or moments when things "just appear" to make sense.....this article was one such moment..."this is why" i gladly support Jenny...well done Jenny!...
Absolutely true. The rational middle no longer exists. Several years ago, when Chrissie Hynde’s book came out, she revealed that she had been abused at a biker party. People were outraged when she simply stated that she shouldn’t have been there, and she knew better. Just because the bear didn’t maul you last time, doesn’t make it sensible to poke it repeatedly. Keep speaking truth!
We live in an age where the only valid way to notoriety and fame is to be a victim. But this is becoming an exercise in futility. W.S. Gilbert summed up the dileeeemaa well in the lyric:
Very true. The obsession with fame and status, which was driven by the execrable, fame whore content of the 2000's and 2010's, has truly driven this craziness. Think Glee 🤮🤮🤮🤮
I'll reiterate that there are 2 types of Leftists involved with any major sociopolitical/cultural problem -- including this rather amorphous problem of Emperor Nero-style sexual degradation in society: organic Leftists who embody and enable the degenerative process; and the very small but powerful minority of Communist billionaires who are weaponizing that process, for whom the first type of Leftists are the Useful Idiot raw material.
And yes, this is ENTIRELY a Leftist problem. Fuck Leftists. Let me get my piano wire...
Who are these “Communist billionaires” of whom you speak? The words “Communist” and “billionaire” are contradictions in terms. Your hatred for the left would be much more incisive if you had a clear grasp of what it means to be a Leftist. Two things that don’t qualify: 1) liberals, and 2) Democrats
A billionaire has class interests directly in opposition to Communism. A liberal is not a Communist. And if there are any Communists in the Democratic Party at this point in history, I'd be more than shocked. Today's Democratic Party has distanced itself completely from the working class, unions, and the poor. Those were big parts of its base once upon a time, but that time ended over the last thirty+ years starting with the ascendancy of the "New Democrats" led by the Clintons and Biden and then Obama.
I'm sure you find most or all of the above puzzling, as it doesn't fit the mythology that Republicans tell their members and that the media is comfortable spreading since the media is owned and controlled by billionaires, not Communists. I'm sure you have other things to do rather than actually read any Karl Marx. Maybe you could take a little time to dig beneath the surface just to see if the story you've been told all your life is an accurate representation of what Marxism and Communism actually say (as opposed to what the US government has been pounding down all our throats going back to the end of WW2). Just a thought.
There are people slowly but surely realizing that the Cabal is a nexus of Communism and Capitalism. That's the new paradigm. You're still laboring under the old paradigm and its rigid lines.
You seem rather condescending about what people know or don't know, especially since you apparently have little to no knowledge of the people you are judging as you try to promote your world view.
Perhaps so. But while I was born at night, it wasn’t last night. I think there’s ample evidence that most Americans have been thoroughly propagandized about Communism, socialism, and Marxism over the last century or more. (And not the only things about which we’re propagandized). Hardly any Americans have read a word Marx wrote, yet everyone has a strong opinion on the subject. I try not to formulate opinions about things I know little (e.g., plasma physics).
If you’re an exception and have a solid familiarity with Marx, my sincere apologies. What works of his have you read?
And by all means, let me know of other things I wrote that were incorrect. You actually didn’t say I was in error, though, but that I was condescending and that I was judging people. I actually don’t blame most Americans for having been propagandized. Most of us work our behinds off trying to make ends meet. There’s little time for reading enormous volumes on political economy by mid-19th century German Jews. Or anyone else. And that might not be counter to the wishes of those billionaires I mentioned. Class interests are most likely to be met for those with enormous wealth and power.
Meanwhile, we’re told all the time by Democrats that white working class people are horrible white supremacists, racists, misogynists, and homophobes. And by Republicans that Democrats are a bunch of America-hating, treasonous Commies spreading godless political ideas to destroy our freedom and American way of life.
Most of the above is nonsense, but it sells newspapers and commercial time on broadcast media and the Internet. So the media happily spreads both sets of myths. Because as long as most of us are working like dogs and spending the rest of our energy hating our neighbors, we won’t realize that our neighbors and ourselves have class interests in common and the same enemies.
As an old undergraduate history and political science major long ago, in class we were assigned the standard works by the standard people including Marx. And one needs only to study the history of the 20th and 21st centuries to see what those supporting this ideology have done to their populations.
"In a natural state, most people’s tastes do not gravitate toward the extreme or advanced sexual behaviours. My opinion is that they develop with input from external conditions or experiences. "
I'd take this further. I'd say that all homosexuals and others who indulge deviant aberrant sex practices were sexually molested/raped as children.
I was not sexually molested as a child, though there was sexual abuse going on in my house against a sibling.
As you know, I'm one of the few gay men who will agree that homosexuality is, in my view, very often an outcome of child abuse. I think it was for me. But that abuse does not have to be direct sexual molestation. This is a very important distinction.
That's interesting (I'm not being sarcastic). I remember, pre-puberty, liking girls, and as I awakened sexually, only being attracted to girls and women. It all just seemed to happen innately. I've always believed the same was true for homosexuals--that they just naturally were stimulated by the same sex, rather than the opposite sex. It's difficult to see how external influences, such as abuse in any form, could alter that in either direction, but it is something to consider.
That has been the prevailing mainstream factoid, which can be recognized as a psychological/cultural way of normalizing homosexuality, or at least an important step in that process. Since Leftists dominate our culture, as they subvert the culture, they police our thoughts & language, such that even non-Leftists feel they have to accept the various components of normalizing homosexuality (and other sexual deviancies). One way is to argue it's just part of Nature. They haven't sufficiently proven this by, among other things, eliminating confounding factors (such as child sexual abuse being a cause). How would it work? I can only speculate, not being an expert in psychology. When the child is sexual abused, the child's sense of self and sexuality becomes traumatized and destabilized ("fucked up" is the scientific term) and part of that destabilization may involve bonding with and identifying with one's abusers -- in a twisted way coming to feel that's the only way to find self-validation & love, as through the sickness of their abusers. Then along comes a surrounding mainstream culture that itself has been molested, ideologically, by infernal Leftists, and their molestation involves a project that is getting worse and worse over time -- more and more warped and powerful in its ability to destabilize people's sense of morality in myriad ways.
Well, maybe, either that or that's a lot of psychobabble. If I had been abused during childhood in a homosexual manner, there is no way it would have magically transformed my attraction for girls into an attraction for boys. But I can't speak for other people.
Speaking of magic, you can't just wave away my argument with a label "psychobabble". You have to offer a counter-argument (which as such is based on what I said). Well you can -- if you don't want to be persuasive.
And not only can you not speak for others, you can't really speak for yourself, knowing with absolute certitude what you *would have done* at such a young age having gone through traumas you don't know the experience & effect of.
I don't have any obligation to offer a counter argument--this is an informal forum, not a term paper. And I don't care whether I persuade you or not. I know I can't speak for others; I already stated that clearly. As for speaking for myself, I most certainly can. You have no idea what I have or have not gone through, but no trauma of any sort could have changed me from heterosexual to homosexual. The very idea of such a thing happening to me or anyone else is asinine psychobabble.
I don't mean to presume, but I will anyway. I think it's likely many adults who were sexually molested don't remember, probably due to suppressing the memories.
Well, that’s sure convenient for your hypothesis, isn’t it?
“All homosexuals and others who indulge deviant aberrant sex practices were sexually molested/raped as children.”
“Actually, I’m gay and I was never abused as a child.”
“You just don’t remember because you’ve suppressed the memories.”
Insisting that people must have “suppressed the memories” of sexual abuse, when there’s no evidence to show that sexual abuse took place, has been very dangerous, historically. People have been wrongfully imprisoned over newly-surfaced “suppressed memories” that were later proven to be false.
Sure, the confounding factors you note likely do exist; but that doesn't mean one should or can discount the probability. One can try to be careful about proceeding. Anyway, I'm not advocating that sexual deviants be investigated in order to uncover who might have abused them so that we can go on witch hunts against those supposed abusers. I'm mainly countering the Mainstream Narrative on this -- as on many other major issues by which the Mainstream, captured by Leftists for decades, is molesting the public in various ways (e.g., the internationally coordinated anti-scientific medical fascism of "Covid"). I can no longer trust the Mainstream on major issues -- especially issues they are industrially promoting and forcing upon society, like the LGBTQ+ toxic batshit.
So what’s your point? You have a funny way of fairly targeting “those who indulge [in] deviant aberrant sexual practices”: homosexuals and others. Maybe just say “people” in that case.
Most people don't indulge in what used to be called sexual deviance (before Communists subverted our culture in their quest to normalize sexual deviance). No doubt the percentage of those who do has been expanding as the cultural subversion has progressed these past few decades, but it remains a minority. The goal, which is to eradicate all boundaries -- including those protecting children -- is proceeding apace as we speak, thanks to Leftists and their Communist Handlers.
"Who knew that the clearly unwell man who talks non-stop in really gross ways about sex is a gross sex partner?’"
Yes, exactly.
"In a natural state, most people’s tastes do not gravitate toward the extreme or advanced sexual behaviours. My opinion is that they develop with input from external conditions or experiences."
My guess is that it's also a response to having lots of idle time. Out ancestors lived precarious lives and were exhausted at the end of the day, which may have left only enough libido for basic sex. Roman emperors made themselves the poster boys for what people get up to when they have too much time on their hands. People nowadays have few enough serious challenges that many find themselves bored. Seeing what others are doing definitely comes into play as well.
Thank you for speaking truth, seeing all sides of the situation from every angle, this is extremely rare! We have a lot of hypocritical beliefs and behaviors which seem to be getting exponentially worse as Society shifts further away from believing in truth, and into the subjective quackery of “lived experience?” The madhouse doors have been ripped off and it’s every person for themselves, with no care or concern on how this behavior destroys all of our lives!
I don’t see a shift away from this primitive thinking though, too bad articles like this aren’t seen by a greater audience, but then, in today’s Woke insane assylum, would it make anyone more rational, not sure?!
The allegations against Brand are coming from the media, not the police. The media can just make this shit up from whole cloth. The whole 'if he is guilty' question is playing along with their narrative - the accusers have no way of proving he is, and he has no way of proving he isn't. Effectively a person's answer will be a reflection of what they think of Brand, hence all the highlighting of shocking things he's said in the past. Unless he said "I spat in this girl's mouth the other day", it's irrelevant.
The accusations have already had their intended effect, in that his YouTube channel has been demonetised and now lots of people think he might be a rapist. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but if he raped anyone, they should have gone to the police at the time. This has nothing to do with justice
I completely agree that the allegations are impossible to verify and that crimes should be handled by the police and not the media. The story was vaunted for having hard evidence of rape in that one of the women went to a clinic in which they took samples from her. However, I'm sure Brand would say she willingly had sex with him, so what does that sample really prove, other than what they both agree on, which is they had sex? It's a sleight of hand.
But the allegations against him are culturally relevant, hence my essay. 😀
Why did she get samples taken if she wasn't going to go to the police with a rape claim? Pretty odd thing to do 'just in case'.
As a trans widow, ex-wife of a man I discovered had been secretly crossdressing from sometime midway through my second pregnancy, I collect data on our experiences. What disturbs me most is the story of Aine-Liv (pseudonym) from my YouTube channel, Trans Widow Ute Heggen. Aine-Liv was brutally raped after her husband, in his new "lingerie" attempted to strangle her. Their infant child was present. She ran with the baby, barefoot, out onto the street and strangers helped her report these crimes and call relatives to pick her up. This was an assault and rape, reported within 24 hours, with proof; photographs of the bruising on her neck were collected by police. She provided clothing with DNA evidence. A few months later, after husband has now "officially declared" he's female, the police came knocking on her mother's door to say they "don't have enough evidence to charge" the man with those crimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZViL3sZeII&t=19s
Christ what a horrible story.
Goodness, I’m so sorry to hear this!
Wow, about an hour ago I was just ruminating on the hypocrisy of the left both celebrating things like BDSM while going after Brand for his behavior. I still recall Howard Stern's "E" show in which he was celebrated for things like using magic marker to highlight problem areas on semi-nude strippers or throwing pies at them. What was all that about? A deranging of people and/or a giant set-up to take these men down later (or blackmail them)? An excuse to enact censorship down the road? Hard to know what to think.
this feels like a case of the tail wagging the dog.
in most abuse expose's, the reporter starts with a police investigation, a lawsuit or from getting a tip from an insider or a victim themselves.
it seems what happened here was none of those. they started with the hypothesis that Brand is a predator, then worked backwards to find some victims (one who worked or works at Channel 4).
needless to say, this is all highly suspect and looks to be a coordinated attack. apparently this story has been in the works for at least a year and a half...just waiting for the right time to drop...
It's truly nuts to me that these women spent *years* investigating this. Why?? Why is Brand so important that he deserves such a lengthy investigation? He was a dude who was famous in the mainstream a decade ago.
His YouTube conspiracy theory channel was very good. I hated everything about the man from his time in the MSM BUT a friend said 'Try his channel he has changed and it is good stuff."
So i did, and I was absolutely stunned at how erudite he was. At what appeared to be hard evidence of all the misbehavior of Governments, Corporations etc. He even repeatedly confessed as to just how horrible a person he had been and it struck me here was a modern 'Damascus Road' conversion, and a truly repentant Brand.
Sadly, or perhaps, more accurately, uncharitably, I could never dissociate him from his previous life (St Paul was lucky I wasn't around at the time I guess, I might have objected to all his letters had I been on the end of one!) so never became a cult follower.
However, what little I saw of his performances, I could well imagine the MSM, Corporate world and Politicians soon felt he was just too good to leave alone and so began the long haul to hoist him with his own petard. The very one they had admired so much when they promoted him and leeched off his depraved former self.*
* I take him at his word that he did see the light and reform.
Yes, exactly. Apparently hundreds of 'potential victims' were interviewed in order to ferret out a small number of relatively minor instances of possible 'abuse/victimization.' Brand has always preferred consensual dalliances and this does not fit the narrative he was to be targeted with. The point was to de-legitimize him and his messaging which is anti-authoritarian, encouragement of community building and spiritual connection and awareness. What especially could not be tolerated was his shining a spotlight on the military-industrial, and medical/pharma-industrial complexes and their dramatically destructive power and influence over our realities, et al. This article breaks it down really well: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1703457208699142607.html
That's terrible. Also I watched that clip from one of his former paramour. She had nothing bad to say about Brand. Now I believe the media even less. I've never been on social media so I wouldn't have known of it, but for you. Thanks
Jenny:-
Well argued! A plague on both their [the Right and the Left's] houses.
What I find so remarkable is just how unremarkable these charges are. Seeing him with Katy Perry was like seeing a loathsome cockroach (pun intended) on the face of a beautiful flower. His then-admitted actions should have - but didn't - disbar him from further celebrity. And now - over a decade later - we have an expose of what was almost public knowledge when the incidents are claimed to have happened. What passes for journalism today would have to improve to be abysmal! Are there no more current scandals to monger? DiCaprio? Gere? ...
It is perhaps not surprising that Dame Dinenage acted to "protect the masses" (i.e., punish those whom she doesn't like) by attempting to deny Brand's fundamental rights. So many of the Remainers were and are elitists. They warned the proles that Britain's economy would tank if it left the EU. Today's economic climate gives that the lie - the EU is tanking while the UK is doing some better.
Best of all in your piece was the acknowledgement of the need for societal norms. I would argue that without such norms - fixed poles to gauge our conduct - we cannot claim to have a culture, in any real sense. When we allowed Brand's conduct in the Aught's to be normalized, we signaled that our multi-culture was really no culture at all.
I agree with most of what you say except, I don't think you should rule out that he may have sincerely atoned for his behaviour. He was clearly an addict when this was all going on, and on principle I think people *can* change for the better and should be given a second chance. Of course, when it comes to celebrities there is no way of knowing how sincere they really are.
Jenny, I've never read anything by you before. I thoroughly enjoyed your article. Very thought provoking. While Brand was a disgusting person, I agree he has probably our grown this phase of his life. I don't think you can criminalize such conduct, no matter how disgusting, unless we are to once again adopt some religious moral code that condemns such actions, which is highly unlikely. I'm shocked that something that happened 20 years ago can lead to a criminal conviction with such little hard evidence. Old text messages? Ridiculous. That actor Masterson will serve 30 years to life in such a case. What happened to requiring "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". All of the folks, both the men & women involved in these cases are revolting human beings, but not necessarily criminals.
Hi Gary, welcome! I agree with you, because criminalisation ought to be used sparingly, since it will invariably end up being used against the innocent at some point, with consequences that are arguably worse than letting a guilty person walk free. That's what makes sex accusations so incredibly difficult. The behaviour might be reprehensible, but should it be criminal?
I see your response now.
I just argued that same point. That’s why we have a Statute of Limitations in the US, although it’s honored in the beach more often lately. Unfortunately I’m told Britain has no such law, which surprises me.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the police have charged him with anything, yet. So far just trial by media and pressure from gov't to "protect the public". They didn't like what he's been saying lately and are making an example of him (in the vein of Jordan Peterson; I know the situations are totally different but the ulterior motives are the same). Of course the need of future hatchet jobs will diminish with the Online Safety Bill preventing anyone becoming a pesky mosquito on the backside of govt in the first place.
Yes, I was just told he hasn’t been charged. Don’t know much snot that statute.
They are given platforms for their behaviour by the likes of the BBC and ITV. In fact I think the first time I came across Brand 'live' was on the Jonathan Ross show on ITV. It wasn't something I wished to repeat so I avoided anything to do with him or Ross for that matter.
I think he has, as well. But that seems beside the point at this point. He's caught up in the "cancel" contraption - one so convolutedly ludicrous that it would embarrass even a Rube Goldberg. Input - one flawed person. Spin, fold, mutilate - and who cares if anything comes out?
Sin has been around for a very long time (as Scripture says, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"), but not that long ago people at least knew what to do even if they did not always do it. We would do well to return to a world where chastity outside of marriage and fidelity in marriage matter.
I agree. I wish humans could discover, once again, the spiritual/psychological/emotional benefits of chastity (whether they believe in God or not). I really don't know that much about Russell (he always struck me as a somewhat insane individual); but I get the impression that he's a person who, not too long ago, "found God" and then tried to live a more "God-focused" life after giving up his drugs, alcohol, and sex addictions. However, even if that's the case, he may not have given up his addiction to being in the Lime Light (and, if so, maybe all of this is happening in order to encourage him to release that addiction as well). I'll be praying for him, for his continued transformation into who the person God wishes him to be. I do find it highly suspicious that his head ended up on the World's Chopping Block at this time, after he had gained so many online followers who, from what I've read, don't seem to support the narrative of our world's "Dark Puppet Masters" (which is why I'm praying for the the souls of the Dark Puppet Masters as well).
“However, even if that's the case, he may not have given up his addiction to being in the Lime Light (and, if so, maybe all of this is happening in order to encourage him to release that addiction as well).”
I couldn’t agree more and this is why I think he still has responsibility, presently, for this situation and I don’t agree that he has reformed his ways completely. He has let go of a lot vice and he doesn’t have to be a perfect person, but the man posts hours and hours and hours of monologues to You Tube with click bait titles. He talks about people joining him in the great awakening... it’s culty and heretical. The ability to monetize that behavior, that sinful behavior, is being taken away from him and I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to happen to him. I think he will probably come to see it that way too.
He says things on YouTube that you don't agree with; you believe, therefore, that demonetizing him as a result of completely unrelated, unproved, unprovable accusations is a good thing. I smell woke.
A fwiw, I agree with a lot that he says, it’s the ranting for hours and hours and hours a day, for money, that I find tiresome.
You don't have to watch.
Are you which hunting? 😉
Which witch is which?
You got me there😂
A brilliant takedown of the naive assumptions behind both sides of this faux outrage.
Thank you!
I have these "thats why" moments... moments when pieces of the puzzle fall into place right before my eyes...or moments when things "just appear" to make sense.....this article was one such moment..."this is why" i gladly support Jenny...well done Jenny!...
Thank you!! 🥰
Absolutely true. The rational middle no longer exists. Several years ago, when Chrissie Hynde’s book came out, she revealed that she had been abused at a biker party. People were outraged when she simply stated that she shouldn’t have been there, and she knew better. Just because the bear didn’t maul you last time, doesn’t make it sensible to poke it repeatedly. Keep speaking truth!
I actually think the rational middle does still exist, and you guys are it!
Yeah, there are dozens of us still left!
Probably more than dozens but, sadly, probably not by much these days.
We live in an age where the only valid way to notoriety and fame is to be a victim. But this is becoming an exercise in futility. W.S. Gilbert summed up the dileeeemaa well in the lyric:
If everbody's somebody, then no-ones anybody
Very true. The obsession with fame and status, which was driven by the execrable, fame whore content of the 2000's and 2010's, has truly driven this craziness. Think Glee 🤮🤮🤮🤮
The title of this piece truly encapsulates the whole sordid mess that is modern media.
Thank you! I'm quite proud of that phrase, actually. 🤣🤣🤣
I'll reiterate that there are 2 types of Leftists involved with any major sociopolitical/cultural problem -- including this rather amorphous problem of Emperor Nero-style sexual degradation in society: organic Leftists who embody and enable the degenerative process; and the very small but powerful minority of Communist billionaires who are weaponizing that process, for whom the first type of Leftists are the Useful Idiot raw material.
And yes, this is ENTIRELY a Leftist problem. Fuck Leftists. Let me get my piano wire...
Who are these “Communist billionaires” of whom you speak? The words “Communist” and “billionaire” are contradictions in terms. Your hatred for the left would be much more incisive if you had a clear grasp of what it means to be a Leftist. Two things that don’t qualify: 1) liberals, and 2) Democrats
A billionaire, a liberal, or a Democrat can all be deceived by leftist ideology and a Communist is already there.
A billionaire has class interests directly in opposition to Communism. A liberal is not a Communist. And if there are any Communists in the Democratic Party at this point in history, I'd be more than shocked. Today's Democratic Party has distanced itself completely from the working class, unions, and the poor. Those were big parts of its base once upon a time, but that time ended over the last thirty+ years starting with the ascendancy of the "New Democrats" led by the Clintons and Biden and then Obama.
I'm sure you find most or all of the above puzzling, as it doesn't fit the mythology that Republicans tell their members and that the media is comfortable spreading since the media is owned and controlled by billionaires, not Communists. I'm sure you have other things to do rather than actually read any Karl Marx. Maybe you could take a little time to dig beneath the surface just to see if the story you've been told all your life is an accurate representation of what Marxism and Communism actually say (as opposed to what the US government has been pounding down all our throats going back to the end of WW2). Just a thought.
There are people slowly but surely realizing that the Cabal is a nexus of Communism and Capitalism. That's the new paradigm. You're still laboring under the old paradigm and its rigid lines.
You seem rather condescending about what people know or don't know, especially since you apparently have little to no knowledge of the people you are judging as you try to promote your world view.
Perhaps so. But while I was born at night, it wasn’t last night. I think there’s ample evidence that most Americans have been thoroughly propagandized about Communism, socialism, and Marxism over the last century or more. (And not the only things about which we’re propagandized). Hardly any Americans have read a word Marx wrote, yet everyone has a strong opinion on the subject. I try not to formulate opinions about things I know little (e.g., plasma physics).
If you’re an exception and have a solid familiarity with Marx, my sincere apologies. What works of his have you read?
And by all means, let me know of other things I wrote that were incorrect. You actually didn’t say I was in error, though, but that I was condescending and that I was judging people. I actually don’t blame most Americans for having been propagandized. Most of us work our behinds off trying to make ends meet. There’s little time for reading enormous volumes on political economy by mid-19th century German Jews. Or anyone else. And that might not be counter to the wishes of those billionaires I mentioned. Class interests are most likely to be met for those with enormous wealth and power.
Meanwhile, we’re told all the time by Democrats that white working class people are horrible white supremacists, racists, misogynists, and homophobes. And by Republicans that Democrats are a bunch of America-hating, treasonous Commies spreading godless political ideas to destroy our freedom and American way of life.
Most of the above is nonsense, but it sells newspapers and commercial time on broadcast media and the Internet. So the media happily spreads both sets of myths. Because as long as most of us are working like dogs and spending the rest of our energy hating our neighbors, we won’t realize that our neighbors and ourselves have class interests in common and the same enemies.
As an old undergraduate history and political science major long ago, in class we were assigned the standard works by the standard people including Marx. And one needs only to study the history of the 20th and 21st centuries to see what those supporting this ideology have done to their populations.
"most Americans have been thoroughly propagandized about Communism, socialism, and Marxism"
Yes -- thoroughly propagandized to think they're mostly harmless and that we don't want to be "paranoid" like that evil Joe McCarthy.
Piano wire 💯💯💯💯💯💯
"In a natural state, most people’s tastes do not gravitate toward the extreme or advanced sexual behaviours. My opinion is that they develop with input from external conditions or experiences. "
I'd take this further. I'd say that all homosexuals and others who indulge deviant aberrant sex practices were sexually molested/raped as children.
I was not sexually molested as a child, though there was sexual abuse going on in my house against a sibling.
As you know, I'm one of the few gay men who will agree that homosexuality is, in my view, very often an outcome of child abuse. I think it was for me. But that abuse does not have to be direct sexual molestation. This is a very important distinction.
That's interesting (I'm not being sarcastic). I remember, pre-puberty, liking girls, and as I awakened sexually, only being attracted to girls and women. It all just seemed to happen innately. I've always believed the same was true for homosexuals--that they just naturally were stimulated by the same sex, rather than the opposite sex. It's difficult to see how external influences, such as abuse in any form, could alter that in either direction, but it is something to consider.
That has been the prevailing mainstream factoid, which can be recognized as a psychological/cultural way of normalizing homosexuality, or at least an important step in that process. Since Leftists dominate our culture, as they subvert the culture, they police our thoughts & language, such that even non-Leftists feel they have to accept the various components of normalizing homosexuality (and other sexual deviancies). One way is to argue it's just part of Nature. They haven't sufficiently proven this by, among other things, eliminating confounding factors (such as child sexual abuse being a cause). How would it work? I can only speculate, not being an expert in psychology. When the child is sexual abused, the child's sense of self and sexuality becomes traumatized and destabilized ("fucked up" is the scientific term) and part of that destabilization may involve bonding with and identifying with one's abusers -- in a twisted way coming to feel that's the only way to find self-validation & love, as through the sickness of their abusers. Then along comes a surrounding mainstream culture that itself has been molested, ideologically, by infernal Leftists, and their molestation involves a project that is getting worse and worse over time -- more and more warped and powerful in its ability to destabilize people's sense of morality in myriad ways.
Et fucking cetera.
Well, maybe, either that or that's a lot of psychobabble. If I had been abused during childhood in a homosexual manner, there is no way it would have magically transformed my attraction for girls into an attraction for boys. But I can't speak for other people.
Speaking of magic, you can't just wave away my argument with a label "psychobabble". You have to offer a counter-argument (which as such is based on what I said). Well you can -- if you don't want to be persuasive.
And not only can you not speak for others, you can't really speak for yourself, knowing with absolute certitude what you *would have done* at such a young age having gone through traumas you don't know the experience & effect of.
I don't have any obligation to offer a counter argument--this is an informal forum, not a term paper. And I don't care whether I persuade you or not. I know I can't speak for others; I already stated that clearly. As for speaking for myself, I most certainly can. You have no idea what I have or have not gone through, but no trauma of any sort could have changed me from heterosexual to homosexual. The very idea of such a thing happening to me or anyone else is asinine psychobabble.
P.S.: Where's my damn PIANO WIRE.
You have piano wire, I have a big red button that I push in my imagination and all the leftists disappear.
I don't mean to presume, but I will anyway. I think it's likely many adults who were sexually molested don't remember, probably due to suppressing the memories.
Well, that’s sure convenient for your hypothesis, isn’t it?
“All homosexuals and others who indulge deviant aberrant sex practices were sexually molested/raped as children.”
“Actually, I’m gay and I was never abused as a child.”
“You just don’t remember because you’ve suppressed the memories.”
Insisting that people must have “suppressed the memories” of sexual abuse, when there’s no evidence to show that sexual abuse took place, has been very dangerous, historically. People have been wrongfully imprisoned over newly-surfaced “suppressed memories” that were later proven to be false.
Sure, the confounding factors you note likely do exist; but that doesn't mean one should or can discount the probability. One can try to be careful about proceeding. Anyway, I'm not advocating that sexual deviants be investigated in order to uncover who might have abused them so that we can go on witch hunts against those supposed abusers. I'm mainly countering the Mainstream Narrative on this -- as on many other major issues by which the Mainstream, captured by Leftists for decades, is molesting the public in various ways (e.g., the internationally coordinated anti-scientific medical fascism of "Covid"). I can no longer trust the Mainstream on major issues -- especially issues they are industrially promoting and forcing upon society, like the LGBTQ+ toxic batshit.
Let’s accept your claim.
So what’s your point? You have a funny way of fairly targeting “those who indulge [in] deviant aberrant sexual practices”: homosexuals and others. Maybe just say “people” in that case.
Most people don't indulge in what used to be called sexual deviance (before Communists subverted our culture in their quest to normalize sexual deviance). No doubt the percentage of those who do has been expanding as the cultural subversion has progressed these past few decades, but it remains a minority. The goal, which is to eradicate all boundaries -- including those protecting children -- is proceeding apace as we speak, thanks to Leftists and their Communist Handlers.
"Who knew that the clearly unwell man who talks non-stop in really gross ways about sex is a gross sex partner?’"
Yes, exactly.
"In a natural state, most people’s tastes do not gravitate toward the extreme or advanced sexual behaviours. My opinion is that they develop with input from external conditions or experiences."
My guess is that it's also a response to having lots of idle time. Out ancestors lived precarious lives and were exhausted at the end of the day, which may have left only enough libido for basic sex. Roman emperors made themselves the poster boys for what people get up to when they have too much time on their hands. People nowadays have few enough serious challenges that many find themselves bored. Seeing what others are doing definitely comes into play as well.
Excellent analyst of the societal problems with this - on all sides.