stock here–I don’t agree with this entirely, maybe not at all, she makes the point that once controlled opposition, always controlled opposition. A home security video came out of a pretty famous humorous Internet guy, who often had the story right. This is real….he was verbally abusing his very pregnant wife who just wanted to use the car, she needed supplies, and he was also denying her the car, just in case he might want to go (Mark Dice) somewhere later. He is on my shit list forever, I will never give him a eyeball again.
The writer says she knew him personally (Russell).
I propose that some controlled opposition, pushed into fame, can actually go rogue and step outside their Overton Window. What do you think? You know I am a sound bite kind of guy, say it in a minute, or you either don’t know the subject well enough, or you don’t know the subject, or know it wrongly. I accuse her of writing far too much to make a point. The book she mentions is of interest though!! Not sure I want to even read that…even though I know much of it to be true, I may not accept that it is ubiquitous. Moby Dick springs to mind, richly ambiguous.
Googling that phrase, it’s hilarious that Wikipedia pretends that the Overton Window only applies to Governmental discussions.
Russell Brand has the strange distinction in my life of being the subject matter of quite probably the oddest argument I have ever had. It was back in the early 2010s, some time before either he or myself had become a theoriser of conspiracies, and I was at the time flat-sharing in North London with a friend I will call Jake.
Jake and I had known each other for several years, my having inherited him from an old university friend of his, who was an old sixth-form friend of mine, and for the most part, we got along very well – even managing to pay all our bills and get to our respective work places on time, despite the fact we lived right in between two rather magnificent pubs (The Old Dairy and “that other one up the road”, for anyone who is familiar with the vicinity).
Miri’s Massive Missives is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
One evening, we had nipped into the aforementioned hostelry for a quick drink, and the usually upbeat Jake was in a bad mood.
“What’s the matter?” I asked, as he sat there silently, sullenly sipping his pint.
“Hmph,” said Jake, scowling at me.
“What?!” I said, rather alarmed, wondering if I’d forgotten to pay the electricity bill or played music too loud or “borrowed” some of his food (the usual flatmate sins).
“I wish you’d all just admit it,” said Jake darkly.
“Who’s ‘you all’ and admit what?”
“Women!”Declared Jake with feeling, banging his now empty pint glass on the table. “And that you’re all in love with Russell Brand!”
“It’s true,” said Jake broodily. “This secret obsession with Russell Brand you all have.”
I knew very well who Russell Brand was (didn’t everyone at the time?) and did indeed have some feelings about him, but a secret obsession tantamount to love was not quite how I would describe them.
“Jake, listen to me very carefully,” I said. “I cannot stand Russell Brand. I think he’s slimy and awful and deeply unattractive in every possible respect. In fact, he reminds me of Rasputin.”
“Hm, yes, well,” muttered Jake. “I believe he was quite popular with the ladies too, wasn’t he?”
I failed to convince Jake that Russell Brand was not in fact the subject of the secret obsession of all women (although you will all be pleased to hear that Jake is now happily married to a woman definitely not obsessed with Russell Brand – she’s not English and had never heard of him – and yes, I checked), but as Brand’s star has continued to rise to ever more ridiculous levels of meteoric fame, that conversation stuck in my head.
It’s clear that the establishment went to great lengths to present Brand to us as a deeply desirable “sex God” that all women lusted after and all men wanted to be, a psy-op that had already become extremely successful nearly 15 years ago, to the extent that my own flatmate who I had known for years would not believe me when I stated I really did not find Brand attractive at all (and once you see the Rasputin thing, you really can’t unsee it) – because the social scripting stated that this was impossible. That Brand was just so oozing in appeal that he was every woman’s “guilty pleasure”, even if they wouldn’t admit it.
Jake obviously knew several women who fitted into this category, and it has since been confirmed to me by other men that, yes, female acquaintances of the time were always fawning over Brand and making comments like, “ooh, I wouldn’t mind bumping into him in a dark alley” (personally I can’t imagine anything more terrifying, other than perhaps him having his mate Harari with him).
Well, here is the point – the establishment does not propel someone to this utterly ridiculous level of engineered desirability unless that person has a very important role to play later on.
Russell Brand has been a constant fixture in the establishment media for years, perennially presented to us as a super-in-demand stud, the womaniser of the millennium, and so on and so forth, and so now here he is with the inevitable “sex scandal”.
Do I believe the allegations? Sure, probably – I mean, insofar as “do I believe he is guilty of doing very bad and possibly illegal things to women”, yes. I believe this because very few people are permitted to ascend to such a dizzying level of talking-head fame as Brand has achieved without being a deeply disreputable character with various perversions and addictions that the deep state uses to control them. And Brand has made no secret of his various vices. If that’s what he’s prepared to be open about, it strongly suggests the real story is even darker – because it generally is with the super-famous.
To be clear, a person could become “legitimately” famous at something where you have no political influence – such as being a sports star – without having these kind of character deficits, as sports stars are generally (not exclusively but generally) only famous for their sporting ability, and not because of their personalities or opinions e.g., I do not believe that the snooker star Steve Davies is a secret sex fiend with a well-established heroin habit that the deep state uses to control him, because Steve Davies has never volunteered any controversial opinions on the world stage, nor tried to wield any wider social influence. He just plays snooker. But when someone is propelled to fame on the basis of their character, becoming well-known for their views and opinions, meaning they are clearly meant to have significant influence on shaping the national narrative – then they are highly likely to be under the control of shady higher-ups.
It’s always been this way and always will be. You don’t achieve colossal international household-name levels of fame (to the extent men genuinely believe “all women are secretly in love with you”) unless “they” own and control you, and the way “they” own and control you is through threats and blackmail over your vices. So, for everyone playing a prominent role on the world stage in terms of wielding very significant political/social influence, their handlers most likely have incriminating footage of them involving sex or drugs or both (or worse), and the ever-present threat of that footage being leaked and their careers destroyed is how they’re kept in line.
For more on that (and if you’ve got a strong stomach), please read the book ‘The Abuse of Power‘, which is a non-“conspiratorial” tome, written by a now elderly man who, in his early twenties and desperate for cash, got sucked into the seedy underbelly of London’s “elite” sex trade – where his main clients were high-flying members of the country’s political and social elite. The kind of things he described witnessing are horrific (and exactly in line with all the “conspiracy theories” about what the ruling classes get up to in private) and he names names.
He’s never been sued for what he’s written, and there is no reason not to believe what he says, so I do. He explains this is how it is for all very powerful men – to achieve and maintain power, wealth, status, and influence, they have to be deeply compromised so they can be controlled. If they do not agree to participate in the kind of activities that would make them compromised, their career progression abruptly grinds to a halt and they never achieve the kind of fame where millions of people around the world know who they are. Anyone who makes it to that level will have “dirt” on them, otherwise they’re too much of a potential liability. A “clean” person with worldwide fame could change the world for the better, so that will never be allowed – only “dirty” people who can be controlled through fear of exposure are allowed to become very visible and influential in a way that shapes global political/social narratives.
So, the overwhelming balance of probability is that anyone who is permitted to become super-famous has deeply incriminating dirt on them, and that it’s far worse than the grey-area “his word against hers” stuff that is being thrown at Russell Brand as part of the current media pantomime. It’s the kind of stuff that would put someone’s life in imminent and immediate danger from vigilante mobs, and for someone as visible and recognisable as Brand, they probably wouldn’t last the week .
Yet now we are told, in response to these vague unsubstantiated allegations that could easily be false and that at least half of people don’t believe, that “the media is trying to destroy Russell Brand because he speaks the truth!!”- to which I laugh, and say, right, so he’s headline news in EVERY newspaper, he’s the leading story on EVERY television news broadcast, almost every person in the country is talking about him (scroll social media and his name comes up every other post), and he’s being “destroyed”?
Come on, have we learned nothing?!
He’s not being “destroyed” any more than Andrew Tate was when the legacy media conspired to make him an international household name by giving him blanket news coverage every minute of every day.
“But they were saying mean things about him!! That proves he’s on our side!!”
Of course they were saying mean things, because someone can’t be presented as an “anti-establishment hero” to the masses if the establishment purports to be nice about them, can they?
The media engages in theatre, Punch ‘n’ Judy politics, by presenting heroes and villains for you to boo and hiss at, or rally and cheer for, depending on your particular political preferences.
If you are a “normie” who is reacting to the Brand story by condemning him as a crazy conpiraloon predator who needs to be locked up – you are reacting exactly as the media wants you to.
If you are a “conspiracy theorist” who is reacting by defending Brand and declaring he is a truth-telling hero who “the media is trying to destroy because he speaks the truth!” – you’re reacting exactly as the media wants you to.
Punch ‘n’ Judy. Bread and circuses. Play both sides (the media always does).
The truth is that Brand (just like Musk and Tate – who have immediately leapt to his defence, what a surprise!) is just another actor and establishment-intelligence asset being used to manage the opposition. He was propelled to super-human levels of fame, just like Musk and Tate have been too, to get everyone invested in him and talking about him so their strings can be pulled in the desired way every time he is seen to do something.
This whole “sex scandal” thing is just staged theatre – which is, as I say, not to say he’s not guilty of significant sexual crimes, he very probably is, but what you’re seeing him accused of on television may very well not be true. However, even if it is true, it certainly hasn’t “destroyed” him – it’s made him more famous than ever and that is the point.
This psy-op seems to serve various functions, the first one being (as a lot of the other big name CO accounts are so keen to tell us):
“This is a warning. If they’ve come for Russell, they’ll come for you too. None of us is safe!”
To which I say (pardon my Francais, but) bullshit. I’ve been speaking out publicly for years, have written directly to multiple government officials accusing them of maiming and murdering the populace, and so on and so forth, and know what has happened to me?
Nothing. Quite literally, nothing – as in, they totally ignore me and conspire to ensure everyone else does too, by endlessly censoring and shadow-banning me and booting me off platforms to keep my reach very low. They don’t do that to “heroes” like Brand, Bridgen, and Tate now, do they? Those guys have massive social media followings – audiences they are not shadow-banned from reaching – and are always in the mainstream press.
Just to be clear, Russell Brand. has over eleven million followers on Twitter. That’s (significantly) more than the UK Prime Minister. He has over six million on YouTube, when any legit content creator will tell you YouTube is one of the most censorious platforms in the world and very quick to ban even small accounts (I only have 1k followers and they’ve already removed two of my videos – once a third is taken down, I’ll be banned).
If Brand wasn’t 100% controlled, he would never have been permitted to achieve such a phenomenal degree of influence – he has the Twitter following of a small country and is better known than many high-ranking politicians. It is simply not possible to rise to that level of visibility without the full collaboration of the establishment, but if – as some claim – “well, he started out controlled but now he’s not” – if that was so, he would just be de-platformed and censored to remove his influence. He would be taken off the big social media platforms and the mainstream media wouldn’t give him coverage.
Because that’s how you destroy someone or something from having any significance or power. You ignore it. You starve it of the one thing any person or cause needs to stay “relevant” – publicity. And it really is true that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, so when you want to “destroy” someone, you don’t make them international front page news and give them their own documentary on Channel 4.
I mean, come on, really? If that’s the establishment “destroying” someone, I sure wish they would try and “destroy” me, as I’m sure all us small-fish, perennially censored, shadow-banned and struggling content creators do, too. (And no – eye-roll emoji, face-palm emoji – I am not “jealous of all the attention” Brand or whoever gets, I’m pointing out that the establishment only ever gives significant, sustained attention to its own. Everyone else, it suppresses and ignores.)
If you want to know how the establishment deals with one of its own who they genuinely want to destroy, who they genuinely want to prevent from having significance or influence, look at the case of Milo Yiannopoulous. Milo was an absolute superstar six years ago, everyone knew his name (even if they couldn’t pronounce it) and everyone was talking about him.
Yet now, can you remember the last time you saw a headline – or even a brief snippet on page 37 – about him?
Nope. Because his career really was destroyed – by the establishment refusing to pay him any more attention, so everyone forgot about him. (Milo was removed because he went severely off-script and started making allegations about protected industry big names in a misjudged attempt to save his own skin – it backfired and they’re still protected and powerful whilst his career has collapsed.)
If they wanted to destroy Brand, they’d do that to him, too. Boot him off all social media and stop saying anything about him at all in the mainstream press. He would be largely forgotten in a matter of months, just as happened to Milo.
So that’s not what they’re doing. Instead, they’re making him even more famous to increase his influence sphere even further, and they have a variety of goals in mind with this. The first is to scare you out of speaking out as we hurtle into the next act of the pantomime plague (“they’ll come for you too”, say the big name accounts ominously, coded warning, so you’d better shut up).
There are very likely to be other agendas, too, and one possibility we have to consider is that the allegations will be “proven false”, just as appears to have happened with the Tates. That the accusers will recant, or they will be cross-examined and found to be lying, or whatever the scriptwriters come up with, to ultimately exonerate Brand.
What would be the takeaway message there? That women lie and that their testimonies can’t be trusted in a court of law as much as a man’s can – just as sharia law, which Andrew Tate is a vigorous proponent of, says – and as would be in line with the ultra-conservative revolution it seems our society is heading for.
Note how sensationally quickly Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, and my old friend Laurence “Lizzo” Fox leapt to Brand’s defence, when – if we were to take this whole scenario at face value – they couldn’t possibly have had the time to source enough information to so publicly stake their reputations on his being innocent. They’re going to look incredibly daft if he’s found guilty, lose all credibility – and their handlers and managers would be unlikely to permit them to take such a potentially brand-wrecking risk unless they had some kind of insider intel assuring them this was a wise public move to make.
Alternatively, the whole thing is being staged intentionally to undermine the credibility of “conspiracy theorists”, as all the big “conspiracy” names have instantly jumped on the Brand bandwagon, so if it is confirmed he’s an evil sex predator, their reputations (and by association, their political beliefs) will be trashed, too. They’ve just been far too quick and coordinated in their endeavours to defend him (when coming to a genuine view takes consideration and time), so they’ve obviously been ordered to, and for what ultimate goal, it remains to be seen.
Whatever the endgame is with this, it’s all ultimately just another tedious bit of media theatre designed to manage the masses and increase the influence of another controlled opposition “hero” – who is now either “being unfairly persecuted, just like Andrew Tate!” – or “an obvious wrong ‘un with his loony views now getting his just deserts”, depending on which media-managed camp you fall into.
In reality, he’s neither. He’s an actor playing a part, just as – in the sphere of politics and talking heads – every single household name in the world is. Because if they’re not, they’re not permitted to become household names (and if they go seriously off-script, they’re “Milo’d”). They want you infatuated with these “heroes” they control so you feel appeased that “something’s being done!” and you don’t get active on the grass roots level and do something yourself. So no, it’s not that “everyone’s controlled opposition” – it’s that every super-famous person promoted by the mainstream media (about 0.0001% of the general population) is. Your local friends, neighbours and colleagues aren’t – but they’re not famous and relentlessly plastered across the front pages of the press. Anyone who is, is suspect.
In closing, I have to say this is probably the most time I’ve dedicated to thinking about Russell Brand in my entire life, so I’ll have to drop my old flatmate Jake a line and let him know my “secret obsession” has finally – thirteen years later – revealed itself… and it was such a secret that I didn’t even know about it myself until just now…
Seriously though: I feel like I need a bath after writing that… I’ve never been able to stand Russell Brand because the energy he gives off is sinister and awful and I hate listening to him speak (regardless of whether he claims to support any of my own ‘pet causes’). From the minute he claimed to become a “truther”, I never bothered to comment on him as it seemed so blatantly obvious he was classic controlled opposition. I only comment on him now as the extraordinary level of international infamy he has achieved over the last few days – becoming the hot talking point of some of the most renowned cultural figures in the world at the current time – means he is destined to become even more sinister in his influence than ever.
Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…
1. Subscribing monthly via Substack
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA
Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.