Thanks for a terrific essay Tereza, to read over a 2 am bowl of cereal. I especially appreciated the section about media/ cultural responses to Brands accusers but the blindness regarding every day women who have been beaten and used up but are trying to defend themselves and their children--Ginger
Great to really feel the passion in your words! (I read, not listened, today. And I'll check out your first video later. It is time for me to sleep.)
The co-ordinated attack is so obvious, it is amazing that people still buy it. We humans are really amazing in so many ways, are we not.
I agree with your assessment of Brand, although I confess to not being as dedicated to him as you have been.
I really loved how you re-iterated the ... what? The kind of banal evil that has overtaken the idea that women are not people. I wasn't really aware that that was still a default posture. (I'm subscribed to a woman who is looking at how that practice is hurting society by brutalising men no differently than when corrupt officials brutalise woman. We are are brutal, burtalising, bully culture and sex has been a huge distraction. Perhaps Peterson could chime in with 'The multi-variable analysis has been done. The liberals don't like the results and are denying what is says: yes, women and men are mostly the same, with just a small difference around agreeableness which, at the extreme, creates a difference in what men and women find interesting to pursue. So... women and men are mostly the same, and yet women are free to take down men and get cheered for it. Hmmmmm.
I didn't know that about Amy Goodman, although I've not been a fan of hers from my first introduction to her. Don't know why, just did not find myself interested in what she was saying.
Thank you for pulling out the stops. Loved the passion here. (And is that a synchronicity, sort of, with Macy Gray's "Gimme all your lovin' or I'll kill you"? LoL! Likely not, and yet I so want to post the link. Here it is.
PS: the wokeness of YouTube is turning it into YouBube. And like Budweiser, if it continues, will likely become a remembrance of suds down the drain. We'll see. The delusion of woke is... wow!
Tereza, excellent article. As you know, I have questioned Brand in the past, however I continue to find him to be one of the clearer voices out there. I maintain my awareness of his visibility. Visibility calls for heightened awareness, for any and everyone in the media. I know Rumble is Peter Thiel's thing, and I bear that in mind with everything I see there. However, I won't allow that association to provide confirmation bias to a hypothetical narrative about Brand. I continue to listen to him regularly.
When I heard about this last week, it felt deflating....because here we STILL are. Peddle out the sex crime accusations to discredit a voice that doesn't tow the line; and/or distract attention away from some giant way that we are being fucked by the agenda.
It is unfortunate that this particular means to an end continues to be used as a method of control. The #MeToo movement is a longer conversation, but what a load of shitfuckery. In my opinion, that "movement" walked justice for victims of sexual crimes in exactly the wrong direction. Innocent men and women will continue to suffer the consequences for years to come.
The impetus of the allegations against Brand are so ridiculously obvious, it seems clear that this should be dismissed with apologies. However D mentioned last night that Brands is getting cancelled and some woman in parliament is calling for him to be banned in the UK entirely. I could be botching that story terribly as I haven't looked it up...but unfortunately I doubt that it's incorrect.
I cannot roll my eyes any harder right now. Here we go again.
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
He's got a mouth that just won't say what we want it to...
RELEASE THE RAPES...CUE THE TEARS...
And if you don't believe the women...well you're not allowed to do that, you misogynist pig.
Yes, SimCom in the comment above had posted about the woman in Parliament, so I included it in my article. The link goes to the full text of the letters she wrote to Rumble and TikTok, if you're talking about the same thing. OH NO, I reread what you're saying that she's calling to evict him from the country!!! That's crazy but isn't it good that things are getting so blatant? I sort of think so. Clear off the people sitting on the fence. Let them know what they're in for.
We're so much more savvy than we were when this was pulled on Assange. It's going to turn out good for us (and him). I just know it.
Hey, thanks for restacking, SimCom! Your research on that added such an insidious layer, knowing that government was coordinating the whole thing, and they're intent on not leaving him a penny, or whatever the British equivalent is.
I read today that the British government asked Rumble about demonizing RB. It’d be interesting to know how many of Epstein’s clients received the same treatment. How many had their business associates asked if they were going to cut off financial ties based on allegations?
Excellent point, Woodshed! And your use of 'demonizing' for 'demonetizing' is one I used way back in a video called Demonizing & Demonetizing 'Disinformation': https://youtu.be/9UlgpFoaIJc
Well done and thank you for this. I like your predictions and I agree he'll come through an even better version of his already formidable self. You're a constant light. Best.
Sep 21, 2023·edited Sep 21, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Great read Tereza ... and increasingly impressed with the list of those you've directly interacted with.
I've only discovered Russell in the last year or so ... better looking and funnier than Jimmy Dore, but I adore 'em both. I had been following Amy Goodman and Democracy Now for a long time, but was not impressed with their coverage of the plandemic, so she has fallen a bit off my radar ... though not as far as Chomsky ... https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/vip-elite-panic-after-new-epstein.
I'm at the local community center now, trying to drum up some business among a few would-be learners of English. But will be sure to catch your videos when I get home.
Thanks, Steve! And I agree on Jimmy Dore. I've wanted to do an episode on their interview together. It's important, I think, to remember how desperate we were for truth-speakers in the middle of all this. It was a desert for me, pre-Substack. Jimmy was such a down-to-earth breath of fresh air.
Thank YOU Tereza. Yeah, maybe Jimmy is not so much a comedian as he is an old-school muck-raker. But since it appears comedians have more job opportunities ... at least pre-Russell comedians ...
Ah, but we are beyond that now, or more likely, laughter and derision have always been a necessary sword and therapy. Very few have been able to make a living off it. And now with the instant gratification of "information" at the touch of the keyboard, sensationalist-tragedy is much more of a click-baity dopamine rush.
What to do, what to do. Maybe start a new edition of The Devil's Dictionary? 😂
We at least I knew it was coming and he did as well. "They" couldn't let him go on like that. He was getting royally on their nerves and reaching a broad audience. I was even surprised it took them that long. YouTube was swift in reacting with pleasure with their social credit policies but they can hardly shut him altogether. Luckily he's still alive. Now we learn the UK parliament went as far as aksing Rumble's CEO to demonetize him to which he bluntly replied NO. Pathetic.
Yes, good point Marc. Many people take it as a sign he was complicit because they let him go for so long. But if they'd shut him down altogether, he'd take his 6.5M subs to another platform. Indeed, pathetic and increasingly obvious.
I have a female friend who went to one of his shows. She met Russel briefly, and has a photo of him kissing her on the forehead. Said he was really sweet and had some kind words for her, as she too is a recovering addict. The guy is really open about his past, and has expressed remorse and shame about his past promiscuity. He is, as hopefully we all are, a work in progress. Judge not lest ye be judged is the expression that comes to mind when I see the attacks against him. We are all perfectly imperfect.
On those Zoom calls, I saw him be very kind and sweet to recovering addicts and to families of the same, often who had lost that person. His audio books on Recovery are worthwhile listening even for those without the same Achilles heel. I'm not sure I would characterize his feelings about his past as shame although the 12-step program of being honest and making restitution is something he's big on. Women were competing to sleep with him. I think his statement that it was always consensual is perfectly in character. He was into sex, but the power over others isn't in his nature now or then, from what friends have told me who did watch Russell 2.0. I remember him talking about a woman who had him sign her boobs and how he would never do something like that now. But we're all who we were born to be and I think his crash and burn made him into the humble and resilient person he is--self-conscious of his own Messiah complex and able to joke about it. Thanks for that personal response.
Shame was an ill thought through word to use. I think I heard him use the word about his past in another context, and I was talking about his thoughts about his past before the events of last Friday. Years ago now. He does say in his last statement on rumble that he had in fact, at times, been too open about his past. And yet that is a reason why so many identify with him. And so many hate him. I’ve spent a few hours arguing about his situation with a couple of guys who have said they hate his guys. He is prejudged by them, and I am exhausted by them. That is one newsletter I need to unsubscribe from! And it’s so damn good too.
I'm just curious about the newsletter. Only because my 'tonic masculinity' term was taken by some very fine writers who were extremely judgmental. And didn't see that their superiority was part of the continuum I'd define as toxic.
These chaps were not in that bracket and in the end I am not proud of my little contribution to the whole sorry state of affairs. Let’s just let it be. Please. I was quite drained and surprised at people’s hostility and twisting of words to suit what I thought was a superior, envious, dismissive attitude. I needed a nap. God bless and take care.
I did awful things when I was young, too. I just didn't get famous for it, nor was I *encouraged* to do so by the flaming media, who revelled in his every "naughty boy" move.
I may have more thoughts along the read, but I haven't finished my coffee yet, so let me get things out as I go: "The most serious was a three-month relationship with a 16 year old … until I read that 16 is the age of consent in England. Really? If the British don’t believe that sex can be consensual at 16 years old, why don’t they change their law? You can’t have it both ways, that it’s perfectly legal unless we don’t like you and want to bring you down."
When you think about it a little longer, you realize, who this allegation of having had a relationship with a 16 years old is for. Think about. You yourself needed to read up to see that it was the age of consent in Britain. That means this piece of information was never(!) intended for a British audience! It was targeted at people in other countries where the age of consent is 18! Like, for instance the country where Youtube resides: the US of A! It was meant to 'appeal' to the sensitivities (and laws!) of another country than the one Russel is a citizen and subject to the laws of! It is in a away similar to what the US is doing to Julian Assang:e a citizen of another country being 'tried' for treason.... even though he is not a US citizen!
When it comes to the British Media, there are very deep and good connections to the British Secret Services (especially the 77th Brigade) and government. They do what they are being told. No need for coercion.
Well the age of consent is also 16 in 34 States of the USA. I think most of Europe is around 16 with some exemptions even lower - like 14 in Germany with parents permission (that's an awkward conversation).
Yeah, I'm imagining how that would have gone with my very Catholic parents. But I also can't imagine a 14 yr old having consensual sex. To me, that's Dark Ages rape and marrying off the daughters as soon as they can get pregnant. If you're not old enough to raise a child, are you old enough to have sex? I dunno.
Well the problem is that all the downstairs equipment is already working at 14 years old while the upstairs equipment really isn't fully formed until your early twenties. Those laws come from a different time where teenagers were somewhat part of the adult world - it was pretty normal to be done with school and work or apprentice at age 15. This sort of changed with more people getting advanced degrees and seemingly delaying adulthood into their late 20ies.
Excellent point and yes, that had occurred to me too. We in the US would read that as statutory rape for someone over 18 to have sex with someone under 18. People are prosecuted for this when the difference is one year. Like everything, this law wasn't written by mothers but by old white men. I don't agree that 16 should be the age of consent but yes, it took one article out of many that finally mentioned that fact.
In addition, there's no evidence presented on that. And it's 14 yrs ago. And like everything, has nothing to do with what he's saying now. Great point on the British media and Secret Service.
If Elvis had had that sort of wiggle room, they would have had to shoot him from the neck up on TV.
Russell'll survive, and hopefully thrive, but if it all goes Antarcticly South, I'd like to think he could get a gig or two as an opening act for Della Mae. Feisty preFeisty...or preFeisty Feisty...
Sep 21, 2023·edited Sep 21, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Brand is a fine mentor, and I would be proud to claim the same heritage. Jane Robert's "Seth" is mine, and I think it is equally as dismissable to the rank and file. I only wish I had his ability to speak clearly and cohesively without so much as a hint of self-doubt.
There is no doubt in my mind what this represents. This is the shot over the bow ahead of the EU's coming DSA (Digital Services Act) in which the U.S. by proxy through he EU seeks to censor Social Media without having to concern itself with that pesky Bill of Rights.
Evidenced by the broad takedown of Brand without any corroborating evidence or even a hearing. Judge, jury and executioner.
We've seen it with Assange, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Grayzone, the list gets longer and longer. Alternative voices attacked and silenced by "Community Standards."
It's not going to end well for the System. We can take heart in that. That which is built on lack of integrity will not stand. Proud to stand with you and others.
Thank you so much, Philip! I hadn't seen that with Glenn or Chris, interesting. I was going to add RFK to the list. Although I don't agree with his platform, the attacks on him for his past, which is very similar to Russell in heroin and sex addiction, are a diversion too many on the 'resistance' side fall for.
Perceptive observation on the coming DSA. I'll keep my eye on that. And I also wish I had his facility with words! at 120 mph!
Glenn and Chris - different circumstances and reasons, same result. Anyone with a dissonant voice is being targeted. Chris's was similar in that the EU banned RT, and deleted Chris's RT content without a whisper.
Funny how it was fine with everyone when it was Alex Jones. Now Jones is being proven correct in many of his assertions.
We all need to look at what horses we're backing, and where our freedoms can be compromised. If someone is making money on YT, they either need to tow the line, or get used to the idea that it can all be taken away. Jimmy Dore still doing Vax disclaimers. Just a matter of time.
Yes, I remember that happening with Chris. He can get a little smug and preachy for my taste, the minister in him coming out. But I don't doubt his integrity. In this episode I call him "the Eeyore of sanctimonious political analysis": https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/muskrat-love-and-anarchy.
And banning RT took so many great journalists out at one time. I used to listen to excerpts from Afshin Rattansi and George Galloway on The Shortwave Report. Amazing to have a former MP unable to speak in his own country!
When RT went, I missed Lee Camp. I got onto Lee Camp over Occupy Wall Street, and while his coverage over COVID was absent (he was playing it safe? He bought the leftist narrative?), his coverage of wars is always spot on.
This is so good Tereza, thank you. I remember the Strauss-Kahn hit twelve years ago and was completely taken in by it, after all us feminists have to stand up to the rich and powerful. But doesn't this now raise questions about the Weinstein case? I don't know. I really don't know. Having worked in the media and entertainment industry all my life I have been all too ready to highlight the abuse and exploitation that I know goes on with regards to women (and men actually.) So, given the painfully obvious smearing of Brand, how much of the Weinstein stuff was true? Pretty sure some of it was, which is why it gets so confusing. But I was absolutely convinced by the Strauss-Kahn events because I couldn't possibly believe that the MSM could coordinate such an attack if it wasn't true. (I don't know why, I never believed the JFK narrative, nor 9-11). I think I was only too ready to stick it to the rich and powerful who abuse the powerless. Which is actually how I feel about the Globalists now since I could not feel more angry about this stuff. Isn't the danger that powerful, but innocent, parties are going to get caught up in our return (metaphorical) crossfire, however righteous we might feel? Still, these coordinated take-downs are becoming so obvious now, perhaps the 'waking up' is about to go viral. Your post on Brand certainly helps people move towards the light.
I'm so happy someone remembers that Strauss-Kahn hit! I wouldn't have put it together if I hadn't been writing my book looking at the petrodollar and it's importance as the world's reserve currency for why the US attacked Iraq even though they never had anything hypothetically to do with 9-11. Ditto Libya, and I'll be reading that chapter of my book soon.
I wouldn't personally go to the opposite extreme of saying that women never expose real predators. But Weinstein happened after decades of abuse, not during the height of his power. Like Cuomo and Strauss-Kahn, the abuse was buried. Maybe there was a reason it was finally allowed to come out but the guy is clearly slime and features in Whitney's book on Epstein. I would never lump all the take-down together as all fabricated or all true, which is why I distinguished Assange as the parallel to Brand. Thanks for your response!
That would be fun! Even if he just posted his videos, it's a much better comment format and would allow us to sub and support him directly rather than YT or even Rumble that relies on ads for revenue.
Substack doesn't embed Rumble videos the way it does automatically with YT. That's why I post both places but embed the YT. When clicked in-screen, I don't think it even adds to my view count, so it might not trigger ads. I don't care because I'm not monetized but it would be nice if Substack allowed embeds from other sources.
Thanks for a terrific essay Tereza, to read over a 2 am bowl of cereal. I especially appreciated the section about media/ cultural responses to Brands accusers but the blindness regarding every day women who have been beaten and used up but are trying to defend themselves and their children--Ginger
Hola, Tereza.
Great to really feel the passion in your words! (I read, not listened, today. And I'll check out your first video later. It is time for me to sleep.)
The co-ordinated attack is so obvious, it is amazing that people still buy it. We humans are really amazing in so many ways, are we not.
I agree with your assessment of Brand, although I confess to not being as dedicated to him as you have been.
I really loved how you re-iterated the ... what? The kind of banal evil that has overtaken the idea that women are not people. I wasn't really aware that that was still a default posture. (I'm subscribed to a woman who is looking at how that practice is hurting society by brutalising men no differently than when corrupt officials brutalise woman. We are are brutal, burtalising, bully culture and sex has been a huge distraction. Perhaps Peterson could chime in with 'The multi-variable analysis has been done. The liberals don't like the results and are denying what is says: yes, women and men are mostly the same, with just a small difference around agreeableness which, at the extreme, creates a difference in what men and women find interesting to pursue. So... women and men are mostly the same, and yet women are free to take down men and get cheered for it. Hmmmmm.
I didn't know that about Amy Goodman, although I've not been a fan of hers from my first introduction to her. Don't know why, just did not find myself interested in what she was saying.
Thank you for pulling out the stops. Loved the passion here. (And is that a synchronicity, sort of, with Macy Gray's "Gimme all your lovin' or I'll kill you"? LoL! Likely not, and yet I so want to post the link. Here it is.
https://youtu.be/LFT_Mk0Iy0Q?si=ZGXU1D377w0aaKW7
PS: the wokeness of YouTube is turning it into YouBube. And like Budweiser, if it continues, will likely become a remembrance of suds down the drain. We'll see. The delusion of woke is... wow!
Tereza, excellent article. As you know, I have questioned Brand in the past, however I continue to find him to be one of the clearer voices out there. I maintain my awareness of his visibility. Visibility calls for heightened awareness, for any and everyone in the media. I know Rumble is Peter Thiel's thing, and I bear that in mind with everything I see there. However, I won't allow that association to provide confirmation bias to a hypothetical narrative about Brand. I continue to listen to him regularly.
When I heard about this last week, it felt deflating....because here we STILL are. Peddle out the sex crime accusations to discredit a voice that doesn't tow the line; and/or distract attention away from some giant way that we are being fucked by the agenda.
It is unfortunate that this particular means to an end continues to be used as a method of control. The #MeToo movement is a longer conversation, but what a load of shitfuckery. In my opinion, that "movement" walked justice for victims of sexual crimes in exactly the wrong direction. Innocent men and women will continue to suffer the consequences for years to come.
The impetus of the allegations against Brand are so ridiculously obvious, it seems clear that this should be dismissed with apologies. However D mentioned last night that Brands is getting cancelled and some woman in parliament is calling for him to be banned in the UK entirely. I could be botching that story terribly as I haven't looked it up...but unfortunately I doubt that it's incorrect.
I cannot roll my eyes any harder right now. Here we go again.
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
He's got a mouth that just won't say what we want it to...
RELEASE THE RAPES...CUE THE TEARS...
And if you don't believe the women...well you're not allowed to do that, you misogynist pig.
Yes, SimCom in the comment above had posted about the woman in Parliament, so I included it in my article. The link goes to the full text of the letters she wrote to Rumble and TikTok, if you're talking about the same thing. OH NO, I reread what you're saying that she's calling to evict him from the country!!! That's crazy but isn't it good that things are getting so blatant? I sort of think so. Clear off the people sitting on the fence. Let them know what they're in for.
We're so much more savvy than we were when this was pulled on Assange. It's going to turn out good for us (and him). I just know it.
Great article, thanks for the shout-out! :)
Hey, thanks for restacking, SimCom! Your research on that added such an insidious layer, knowing that government was coordinating the whole thing, and they're intent on not leaving him a penny, or whatever the British equivalent is.
I think maybe........a penny?
I read today that the British government asked Rumble about demonizing RB. It’d be interesting to know how many of Epstein’s clients received the same treatment. How many had their business associates asked if they were going to cut off financial ties based on allegations?
Excellent point, Woodshed! And your use of 'demonizing' for 'demonetizing' is one I used way back in a video called Demonizing & Demonetizing 'Disinformation': https://youtu.be/9UlgpFoaIJc
Well done and thank you for this. I like your predictions and I agree he'll come through an even better version of his already formidable self. You're a constant light. Best.
Great read Tereza ... and increasingly impressed with the list of those you've directly interacted with.
I've only discovered Russell in the last year or so ... better looking and funnier than Jimmy Dore, but I adore 'em both. I had been following Amy Goodman and Democracy Now for a long time, but was not impressed with their coverage of the plandemic, so she has fallen a bit off my radar ... though not as far as Chomsky ... https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/vip-elite-panic-after-new-epstein.
I'm at the local community center now, trying to drum up some business among a few would-be learners of English. But will be sure to catch your videos when I get home.
Cheers Tereza
Thanks, Steve! And I agree on Jimmy Dore. I've wanted to do an episode on their interview together. It's important, I think, to remember how desperate we were for truth-speakers in the middle of all this. It was a desert for me, pre-Substack. Jimmy was such a down-to-earth breath of fresh air.
Thank YOU Tereza. Yeah, maybe Jimmy is not so much a comedian as he is an old-school muck-raker. But since it appears comedians have more job opportunities ... at least pre-Russell comedians ...
Ah, but we are beyond that now, or more likely, laughter and derision have always been a necessary sword and therapy. Very few have been able to make a living off it. And now with the instant gratification of "information" at the touch of the keyboard, sensationalist-tragedy is much more of a click-baity dopamine rush.
What to do, what to do. Maybe start a new edition of The Devil's Dictionary? 😂
We at least I knew it was coming and he did as well. "They" couldn't let him go on like that. He was getting royally on their nerves and reaching a broad audience. I was even surprised it took them that long. YouTube was swift in reacting with pleasure with their social credit policies but they can hardly shut him altogether. Luckily he's still alive. Now we learn the UK parliament went as far as aksing Rumble's CEO to demonetize him to which he bluntly replied NO. Pathetic.
Yes, good point Marc. Many people take it as a sign he was complicit because they let him go for so long. But if they'd shut him down altogether, he'd take his 6.5M subs to another platform. Indeed, pathetic and increasingly obvious.
I have a female friend who went to one of his shows. She met Russel briefly, and has a photo of him kissing her on the forehead. Said he was really sweet and had some kind words for her, as she too is a recovering addict. The guy is really open about his past, and has expressed remorse and shame about his past promiscuity. He is, as hopefully we all are, a work in progress. Judge not lest ye be judged is the expression that comes to mind when I see the attacks against him. We are all perfectly imperfect.
On those Zoom calls, I saw him be very kind and sweet to recovering addicts and to families of the same, often who had lost that person. His audio books on Recovery are worthwhile listening even for those without the same Achilles heel. I'm not sure I would characterize his feelings about his past as shame although the 12-step program of being honest and making restitution is something he's big on. Women were competing to sleep with him. I think his statement that it was always consensual is perfectly in character. He was into sex, but the power over others isn't in his nature now or then, from what friends have told me who did watch Russell 2.0. I remember him talking about a woman who had him sign her boobs and how he would never do something like that now. But we're all who we were born to be and I think his crash and burn made him into the humble and resilient person he is--self-conscious of his own Messiah complex and able to joke about it. Thanks for that personal response.
Shame was an ill thought through word to use. I think I heard him use the word about his past in another context, and I was talking about his thoughts about his past before the events of last Friday. Years ago now. He does say in his last statement on rumble that he had in fact, at times, been too open about his past. And yet that is a reason why so many identify with him. And so many hate him. I’ve spent a few hours arguing about his situation with a couple of guys who have said they hate his guys. He is prejudged by them, and I am exhausted by them. That is one newsletter I need to unsubscribe from! And it’s so damn good too.
I'm just curious about the newsletter. Only because my 'tonic masculinity' term was taken by some very fine writers who were extremely judgmental. And didn't see that their superiority was part of the continuum I'd define as toxic.
These chaps were not in that bracket and in the end I am not proud of my little contribution to the whole sorry state of affairs. Let’s just let it be. Please. I was quite drained and surprised at people’s hostility and twisting of words to suit what I thought was a superior, envious, dismissive attitude. I needed a nap. God bless and take care.
Hate his guts*
and: "There but for the Grace of God, go I."
I did awful things when I was young, too. I just didn't get famous for it, nor was I *encouraged* to do so by the flaming media, who revelled in his every "naughty boy" move.
I may have more thoughts along the read, but I haven't finished my coffee yet, so let me get things out as I go: "The most serious was a three-month relationship with a 16 year old … until I read that 16 is the age of consent in England. Really? If the British don’t believe that sex can be consensual at 16 years old, why don’t they change their law? You can’t have it both ways, that it’s perfectly legal unless we don’t like you and want to bring you down."
When you think about it a little longer, you realize, who this allegation of having had a relationship with a 16 years old is for. Think about. You yourself needed to read up to see that it was the age of consent in Britain. That means this piece of information was never(!) intended for a British audience! It was targeted at people in other countries where the age of consent is 18! Like, for instance the country where Youtube resides: the US of A! It was meant to 'appeal' to the sensitivities (and laws!) of another country than the one Russel is a citizen and subject to the laws of! It is in a away similar to what the US is doing to Julian Assang:e a citizen of another country being 'tried' for treason.... even though he is not a US citizen!
When it comes to the British Media, there are very deep and good connections to the British Secret Services (especially the 77th Brigade) and government. They do what they are being told. No need for coercion.
Well the age of consent is also 16 in 34 States of the USA. I think most of Europe is around 16 with some exemptions even lower - like 14 in Germany with parents permission (that's an awkward conversation).
Yeah, I'm imagining how that would have gone with my very Catholic parents. But I also can't imagine a 14 yr old having consensual sex. To me, that's Dark Ages rape and marrying off the daughters as soon as they can get pregnant. If you're not old enough to raise a child, are you old enough to have sex? I dunno.
Well the problem is that all the downstairs equipment is already working at 14 years old while the upstairs equipment really isn't fully formed until your early twenties. Those laws come from a different time where teenagers were somewhat part of the adult world - it was pretty normal to be done with school and work or apprentice at age 15. This sort of changed with more people getting advanced degrees and seemingly delaying adulthood into their late 20ies.
Excellent point and yes, that had occurred to me too. We in the US would read that as statutory rape for someone over 18 to have sex with someone under 18. People are prosecuted for this when the difference is one year. Like everything, this law wasn't written by mothers but by old white men. I don't agree that 16 should be the age of consent but yes, it took one article out of many that finally mentioned that fact.
In addition, there's no evidence presented on that. And it's 14 yrs ago. And like everything, has nothing to do with what he's saying now. Great point on the British media and Secret Service.
MAY be played by actors?
If Elvis had had that sort of wiggle room, they would have had to shoot him from the neck up on TV.
Russell'll survive, and hopefully thrive, but if it all goes Antarcticly South, I'd like to think he could get a gig or two as an opening act for Della Mae. Feisty preFeisty...or preFeisty Feisty...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9wWGmtAiU
Brand is a fine mentor, and I would be proud to claim the same heritage. Jane Robert's "Seth" is mine, and I think it is equally as dismissable to the rank and file. I only wish I had his ability to speak clearly and cohesively without so much as a hint of self-doubt.
There is no doubt in my mind what this represents. This is the shot over the bow ahead of the EU's coming DSA (Digital Services Act) in which the U.S. by proxy through he EU seeks to censor Social Media without having to concern itself with that pesky Bill of Rights.
Evidenced by the broad takedown of Brand without any corroborating evidence or even a hearing. Judge, jury and executioner.
We've seen it with Assange, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Grayzone, the list gets longer and longer. Alternative voices attacked and silenced by "Community Standards."
It's not going to end well for the System. We can take heart in that. That which is built on lack of integrity will not stand. Proud to stand with you and others.
Thank you so much, Philip! I hadn't seen that with Glenn or Chris, interesting. I was going to add RFK to the list. Although I don't agree with his platform, the attacks on him for his past, which is very similar to Russell in heroin and sex addiction, are a diversion too many on the 'resistance' side fall for.
Perceptive observation on the coming DSA. I'll keep my eye on that. And I also wish I had his facility with words! at 120 mph!
Glenn and Chris - different circumstances and reasons, same result. Anyone with a dissonant voice is being targeted. Chris's was similar in that the EU banned RT, and deleted Chris's RT content without a whisper.
Funny how it was fine with everyone when it was Alex Jones. Now Jones is being proven correct in many of his assertions.
We all need to look at what horses we're backing, and where our freedoms can be compromised. If someone is making money on YT, they either need to tow the line, or get used to the idea that it can all be taken away. Jimmy Dore still doing Vax disclaimers. Just a matter of time.
Yes, I remember that happening with Chris. He can get a little smug and preachy for my taste, the minister in him coming out. But I don't doubt his integrity. In this episode I call him "the Eeyore of sanctimonious political analysis": https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/muskrat-love-and-anarchy.
And banning RT took so many great journalists out at one time. I used to listen to excerpts from Afshin Rattansi and George Galloway on The Shortwave Report. Amazing to have a former MP unable to speak in his own country!
When RT went, I missed Lee Camp. I got onto Lee Camp over Occupy Wall Street, and while his coverage over COVID was absent (he was playing it safe? He bought the leftist narrative?), his coverage of wars is always spot on.
This is so good Tereza, thank you. I remember the Strauss-Kahn hit twelve years ago and was completely taken in by it, after all us feminists have to stand up to the rich and powerful. But doesn't this now raise questions about the Weinstein case? I don't know. I really don't know. Having worked in the media and entertainment industry all my life I have been all too ready to highlight the abuse and exploitation that I know goes on with regards to women (and men actually.) So, given the painfully obvious smearing of Brand, how much of the Weinstein stuff was true? Pretty sure some of it was, which is why it gets so confusing. But I was absolutely convinced by the Strauss-Kahn events because I couldn't possibly believe that the MSM could coordinate such an attack if it wasn't true. (I don't know why, I never believed the JFK narrative, nor 9-11). I think I was only too ready to stick it to the rich and powerful who abuse the powerless. Which is actually how I feel about the Globalists now since I could not feel more angry about this stuff. Isn't the danger that powerful, but innocent, parties are going to get caught up in our return (metaphorical) crossfire, however righteous we might feel? Still, these coordinated take-downs are becoming so obvious now, perhaps the 'waking up' is about to go viral. Your post on Brand certainly helps people move towards the light.
I'm so happy someone remembers that Strauss-Kahn hit! I wouldn't have put it together if I hadn't been writing my book looking at the petrodollar and it's importance as the world's reserve currency for why the US attacked Iraq even though they never had anything hypothetically to do with 9-11. Ditto Libya, and I'll be reading that chapter of my book soon.
I wouldn't personally go to the opposite extreme of saying that women never expose real predators. But Weinstein happened after decades of abuse, not during the height of his power. Like Cuomo and Strauss-Kahn, the abuse was buried. Maybe there was a reason it was finally allowed to come out but the guy is clearly slime and features in Whitney's book on Epstein. I would never lump all the take-down together as all fabricated or all true, which is why I distinguished Assange as the parallel to Brand. Thanks for your response!
It would be nice to see Russell join substack!
That would be fun! Even if he just posted his videos, it's a much better comment format and would allow us to sub and support him directly rather than YT or even Rumble that relies on ads for revenue.
Substack doesn't embed Rumble videos the way it does automatically with YT. That's why I post both places but embed the YT. When clicked in-screen, I don't think it even adds to my view count, so it might not trigger ads. I don't care because I'm not monetized but it would be nice if Substack allowed embeds from other sources.
Thanks for this. I appreciate the personal and insightful angle here.
Great essay, Tereza.
Jeff, on his way to China...
Godspeed, Jeff ;-) Glad you're providing that first-person perspective.