Full text (1/2)
As I'm sure many of you have now seen, they have come for Russell Brand. Rather serious allegations of rape and other improprieties.
They actually started gunning for him a while ago. And the more popular he got, the harder they came after him.
There was a March piece detailing how he "fell out of favour" with the left. It's pretty telling. Once you go after their sacred cows - Hillary Clinton (no pun intended, but funny is funny), Fauci, the jab, big pharma, big military - they send in their preverbal assassins. If they can't assassinate you literally (the JFK cover-up might have been more work than they planned), they will do it through law-fare or through hit-piece character assassination.
The gist of the accusations against Russell are 4 women who came forward - but only after journalists approached them to do so - and allege everything from psychological abuse to literal rape dating back to 2006.
One of the accusers in particular alleges she was raped, went to the hospital to get a rape kit (medical records allegedly confirm it), and then sought therapy (also allegedly confirmed by medical records).
If we are playing devil's advocate - or merely thinking critically and assessing the situation objectively - the woman who claims rape confirmed that they had consensual sex in the past, but that Russell was pressuring her not to use a condom then. The incident that she claims was rape was sex (allegedly non-consensual) but also without a condom. One can easily imagine Russell's defense - it was consensual like the prior occasions, but consensually without a condom - a decision the woman clearly regretted (evidenced by text messages and Russell's know sex history).
"Stealthing" (engaging in consensual sex but non-consensually without / removing a condom) is a crime in some jurisdictions - including England from what I understand. So the allegation is serious. And given Russell's admitted sex addition, the allegations are not unbelievable on their face.
Was the sex totally consensual, and the story a total revisionist fabrication at the request / pressure of journalists and media?
Was the sex consensual, but the condom removal / absence of a condom non-consensual?
Was it rape, pure and simple? (Again, from what I understand, there is no statute of limitations on rape in England, so a serious legal issue for Russell).
The problem is that we will likely never know. And it won't make a difference because once the accusations are made, as the metaphor goes, the feathers of the torn pillow have been released and there is no putting them back.
The other problem is that we are not dealing with a Brett Kavanaugh type either. Russell is not a judge with an otherwise unblemished past. He is an admitted (and purportedly recovered) drug addict and sex addict. He has been very open about his struggles for sobriety and fighting addiction. And now, his honesty will be the sharpest tool in the arsenal to be used against him by those intent on taking him down, truth be damned. When the accusations of conspiracy theory peddling did nothing, the Matrix reverts to its go-to: Allegations of sexual misconduct.
Are the allegations against Russell Brand true? No one will ever know except Russell and the accusers. And even then, I'm not so certain. Revisionist memory can retroactively fabricate victimhood where there was no victimization. And it can retroactively fabricate innocence where there was in fact culpability. As I have always said, the easiest person in the world to lie to is yourself - for good and for bad.
The broader picture here is the obvious: If false, it's a dirty smear campaign that will probably work given Russell's past (though he has had a massive surge in followers on both Twitter and YouTube since the story broke. Whether that's because no one believes the media, or because people want to witness the car wreck, we can't be sure)…archive.ph/rwaof
As I'm sure many of you have now seen, they have come for Russell Brand. Rather serious allegations of rape and other improprieties.
They actually started gunning for him a while ago. And the more popular he got, the harder they came after him.
There was a March piece detailing how he "fell out of favour" with the left. It's pretty telling. Once you go after their sacred cows - Hillary Clinton (no pun intended, but funny is funny), Fauci, the jab, big pharma, big military - they send in their preverbal assassins. If they can't assassinate you literally (the JFK cover-up might have been more work than they planned), they will do it through law-fare or through hit-piece character assassination.
The gist of the accusations against Russell are 4 women who came forward - but only after journalists approached them to do so - and allege everything from psychological abuse to literal rape dating back to 2006.
One of the accusers in particular alleges she was raped, went to the hospital to get a rape kit (medical records allegedly confirm it), and then sought therapy (also allegedly confirmed by medical records).
If we are playing devil's advocate - or merely thinking critically and assessing the situation objectively - the woman who claims rape confirmed that they had consensual sex in the past, but that Russell was pressuring her not to use a condom then. The incident that she claims was rape was sex (allegedly non-consensual) but also without a condom. One can easily imagine Russell's defense - it was consensual like the prior occasions, but consensually without a condom - a decision the woman clearly regretted (evidenced by text messages and Russell's know sex history).
"Stealthing" (engaging in consensual sex but non-consensually without / removing a condom) is a crime in some jurisdictions - including England from what I understand. So the allegation is serious. And given Russell's admitted sex addition, the allegations are not unbelievable on their face.
Was the sex totally consensual, and the story a total revisionist fabrication at the request / pressure of journalists and media?
Was the sex consensual, but the condom removal / absence of a condom non-consensual?
Was it rape, pure and simple? (Again, from what I understand, there is no statute of limitations on rape in England, so a serious legal issue for Russell).
The problem is that we will likely never know. And it won't make a difference because once the accusations are made, as the metaphor goes, the feathers of the torn pillow have been released and there is no putting them back.
The other problem is that we are not dealing with a Brett Kavanaugh type either. Russell is not a judge with an otherwise unblemished past. He is an admitted (and purportedly recovered) drug addict and sex addict. He has been very open about his struggles for sobriety and fighting addiction. And now, his honesty will be the sharpest tool in the arsenal to be used against him by those intent on taking him down, truth be damned. When the accusations of conspiracy theory peddling did nothing, the Matrix reverts to its go-to: Allegations of sexual misconduct.
Are the allegations against Russell Brand true? No one will ever know except Russell and the accusers. And even then, I'm not so certain. Revisionist memory can retroactively fabricate victimhood where there was no victimization. And it can retroactively fabricate innocence where there was in fact culpability. As I have always said, the easiest person in the world to lie to is yourself - for good and for bad.
The broader picture here is the obvious: If false, it's a dirty smear campaign that will probably work given Russell's past (though he has had a massive surge in followers on both Twitter and YouTube since the story broke. Whether that's because no one believes the media, or because people want to witness the car wreck, we can't be sure)…archive.ph/rwaof
https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1703149927126143445
2/2
But even if true, the "left"... the "uni-party", the fake news MSM, the entire entertainment industry - whatever you want to call it - had to have known about it all along and kept the dirty secret to themselves until such time as they saw Russell as an ideological adversary. They tolerate the abuse so long as politics are aligned, then exploit the victims for political profit when politics diverge. It's their modus operandi, in Hollywood and in politics.
What do I think? I have not doubt Russell did things that he deeply regrets. Thing that were indeed exploitive. Opportunistic. Disrespectful. Callous. Totally degenerate. He was quite open about it in his book. And I have no doubt he has sought to make amends to the extent possible, as per the 12 steps of recovery.
Do I believe he committed bona fide sex crimes? No, though I will never know for certain. Do I believe this because I have a soft spot / bias for Russell? Perhaps. I am susceptible of bias / motivated reasoning as well.
But with that self-doubt in mind, my scepticism of the allegations stems not so much from my propensity to want to like Russell for the good he is doing now, but more so because of the passage of time between the alleged acts and the accusations. I appreciate all the arguments for why alleged victims are slow to come forward. But there is an inherent unfairness for all in waiting too long, when innocence can effectively never be proven, and the shroud of guilt will always remain given the mere existence of the allegations.
I am also deeply sceptical of the politically convenient time for the accusations in the broader context of the attempts to take Russell Brand down for good, for once and for all. One attempt after another over the course of years, all to no avail. And then this.
Am I right or wrong, only the divine can know. And the doubts will always linger regardless. Which I have no doubt is part of the plan.
My deep thoughts.
Peace
But even if true, the "left"... the "uni-party", the fake news MSM, the entire entertainment industry - whatever you want to call it - had to have known about it all along and kept the dirty secret to themselves until such time as they saw Russell as an ideological adversary. They tolerate the abuse so long as politics are aligned, then exploit the victims for political profit when politics diverge. It's their modus operandi, in Hollywood and in politics.
What do I think? I have not doubt Russell did things that he deeply regrets. Thing that were indeed exploitive. Opportunistic. Disrespectful. Callous. Totally degenerate. He was quite open about it in his book. And I have no doubt he has sought to make amends to the extent possible, as per the 12 steps of recovery.
Do I believe he committed bona fide sex crimes? No, though I will never know for certain. Do I believe this because I have a soft spot / bias for Russell? Perhaps. I am susceptible of bias / motivated reasoning as well.
But with that self-doubt in mind, my scepticism of the allegations stems not so much from my propensity to want to like Russell for the good he is doing now, but more so because of the passage of time between the alleged acts and the accusations. I appreciate all the arguments for why alleged victims are slow to come forward. But there is an inherent unfairness for all in waiting too long, when innocence can effectively never be proven, and the shroud of guilt will always remain given the mere existence of the allegations.
I am also deeply sceptical of the politically convenient time for the accusations in the broader context of the attempts to take Russell Brand down for good, for once and for all. One attempt after another over the course of years, all to no avail. And then this.
Am I right or wrong, only the divine can know. And the doubts will always linger regardless. Which I have no doubt is part of the plan.
My deep thoughts.
Peace
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
