Trying to understand Brand supporters

[mids2019]

I am trying to understand why some people are actually trying to support Russell Brand.

I think a lot of it is down to disappointment that a figure they may have once liked has brought himself into disgrqce. My partner liked Michael Jackson and the accusations by the two men about him at the time really did disillusion them about her youthful admirations; Brand is not Jackson but there may be a similar thought process.

I think it also makes people feel 'who's next' and realise that the media has been adept at covering the behaviour of big star names (Schofiled, Spacey, etc.). Possibly people would rather have

the idea of Brand being innocent than let go of cherished views that we a celebrity circuit of people who are 'the good guys'.

I have noticed that a lot of the celeb circuit in radio and television are a little reluctant to speak about the subjects Brand has brought up. A few programs have touched upon the topic tangentially and it obviously makes the main news but a lot of the morning DJs such as Chris Evans.etc haven't mentioned it all on their shows which I feel is quite strange. It all lends itself to a view that the celebs who we all invest in are fallible and we could be waking up one morning to find another has a strong of allegations against them.

Possibly there is part of human nature that allows the elite to have led way iin their behaviour towards others?.There have been historical cases where rich men (aristocracy) have basically had the right to assault lower class women and maybe this is a modern extension of this?

There are obviously the misogynist conspiracy theorists but I think there are also others that may be looking to defend the antics of men in the 2000s as they were of that period and they don't particular like the whole era being stained in their memories. There are also a few that think Brand is being judged by 2023 standards when a lot of the alleged crimes happened in the 2000s where although the law was the same , in my opinion, the culture wasn't and Brand was maybe an extreme of behaviour shown by many men.

Andrew Neill made a good remark about Brand. He said it was a British failing that we elevated such talentless people, like Brand.

Brand is incredibly crude. He's always been like that. What does it say about us, I wonder? Nothing much good. I mean his books are awful and mean and crude.

But apparently it's bleak and honest. Nothing of the kind. He conned a lot of stupid people.

2nd half fair enough - but his assertions about Brand upsetting "big government, big pharma and Bil Gates" with his youtube channel is more than a bit crackers. You can read about everything he claims the MSM is not reporting in The Economist and The Financial Times. Doubt any "big powerful people" knew anything about his youtube grift before this. It's not like he's been fostering a movement, campaigns etc. All his acolytes do is watch more Russel Brand videos.

If anything I think "everything is a conspiracy" types are useful to the ephemeral "powers that be" anyway. It means serious concerns (government overreach in the pandemic), undermining of democratic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and puberty blockers etc, are hard to talk about without "lol Jewish space lazers, microchips in vaccines" etc etc. None of that's Brands fault as such but it's one of the reasons properly researched investigative journalism can't be replaced by people with YouTube channels shooting ideas into the void. It's why the decline of proper journalism is such a loss (and why I think people that take the effort to really investigate.issues are vilified). Brand never investigated stuff so much as gave his opinion, called out hypocracies, sometimes brought up less talked about news stories. Which is fine as it goes but really not a threat. In order to be "on to something" you have to actually do journalism.

I haven't reread it bombastix as I lent it my Mum so it's probably been put in a charity shop since and is now in a bin somewhere but you appear to be consumed with me finding it to be both bleak and honest when I read it seventeen years ago.
It was bleak. Bloody depressingly bleak. Porn exposed, child abused, addiction addled bleak. That wasn't some made up shit. His father was a wanker, he was also sexually abused, his lows and what he'd do/what fellow addicts did for a hit was abhorrent and parts of the lows were Dickensian.
It is completely possible to be a victim and a culprit at the same time.
Only child, his mum got cancer three times, he was sexually abused by a tutor, his relationship with his macho stepdad was dodgy as fuck (taking him to Thailand and ordering him a prostitute at 16) his problems with crack, heroin, cutting himself, sex, food, ADHD.
The other impression I had was how brutal, raw and unflattering it was (for someone with such a huge ego) he came across as a cunt because he was acting like one. It was warts-and-all because he put in so much detail in there (that would count against him and has been used against him). Hoisted by his own petard, his own words and anecdotes pored over, to help get the evidence needed to nail him.
Seventeen years later, of course it's going to read differently but at the time, it won the Biography of the year at the 2008 British Book Awards. I am not stupid thanks, I have two degrees, read a lot, try and see both sides and the good in people. Brand donated money to charities, helped people kick drugs and paid for others' rehab, created and later donated a non-profit café, and protested alongside families due to be evicted.
He is also potentially a rapist, a bully and a liar and has allegedly done some awful, awful things for which I hope he is punished through due process.