The question for me is this, why is every threat to the establishment seemingly met with the same strategy, one might call it a tactic? The exposure of an alleged sexual impropriety on the part of a male who is in the spotlight…
I’m going to talk about Russel Brand, but this question, this phenomenon, this tactic, is not limited to his emerging case. That is if there is a case to speak about, Brand may be the victim of a deliberate smear, a campaign that is designed to succeed even if it doesn’t succeed, by doing just enough damage while it is alive, to make sure that our alleged perp is knocked down from whatever perch he currently occupies; to hobble the effect of his problematic power.
Brand is a public figure, oft a critic of the establishment with a growing popularity in America and Britain, he has become much followed on social media and a regular guest for talk shows. He claims to be a socialist, a man of the people, and initially I think people were quite sceptical of his motives, believing that he may be merely self-aggrandising, and sceptical of his authenticity, knowing that rich successful people don’t often speak for the people, and have been known to use populism as a tactic for their own prominence while not believing a word of what they actually say. He has won over these people, and I don’t include myself in that group as I was not convinced initially and for those very reasons, and I am still not. However, I would say he is one of the most articulate and brazen speakers on behalf of the common man that we have produced recently. Whether he believes what he says is no matter to me in this piece, and whether he is guilty of a crime is, to me, irrelevant also, for now.
The fact that he says things that are true, and makes speculations, draws conclusions, on suspicions we all hold, means it doesn’t really matter if he is genuine or not even if he is not actually trying to con us out of anything. There’s no harm in this sort of entertainment and popularity is a fashion more than a genuine thing based on real ability most of the time anyways, at least other than the ability to be popular by any means. Nobody really thinks four chord pop ballad machine Ed Sheeran is a songster in the same league as the great Bob Dylan or Mark Knopfler, it’s just that his popularity as a producer of similarly structured love songs in differing keys and styles is currently the stuff of popularity. Not that the uptake in listening has even the remotest relationship with an idea of measurable or subjective quality. The protest, humour, entertainment, intelligence, social awareness, that other, more highly nuanced artists produce, is not there.
The fictional character Johnathan Pie is currently the best political commentator available in Britain because the character can break conventions, a serious social commentator that is not employed by a powerful media brand can do the same, tell truths that a real news presenter would be constrained by. That constraint is an affect of two factors, the first being the ownership of, and motivation concerning, the mechanisms of conveying news (I would have said information at a stretch, but certainly not truth), the media industry. The second being the ability to continue putting food on the table of the journalist. Brand has plenty of hay in the barn, and he’s not trying to be elected to any position, so no master is present to restrain him other than the power of those persons who own the forums of media to exclude him, and they needed a reason.
Now the go-to tactic historically would have been to make a farce of this figure, people as old as me can remember Tony Benn, Michael Foot, and Jessie Jackson, and recently the MP Jeremy Corbyn, all being made ridiculous by the media. Turned into enemies or banalities by constant media coverage positioning them as loonies with ridiculous ideas that would simply not work, or suggesting them to be in support of radical positions or persons. Untrue speculations loosely presented as facts that do just enough damage, nothing proved but nothing needed to be. The accusation does its job in the same way as the lack of evidence does when a rich or powerful person gets away scot-free with an alleged sexual or financial indiscretion. The media decides how the people will feel about who is guilty and who is not. There are honestly still people in the world that believe Michael Jackson did not at the very least have a less than normal interest in children.
What is the tactic here and why is it necessary? When a person presents a legitimate criticism of an establishment, by using Immanent Critique, they become the greatest threat to the underpinning authority that provides the continuation of power for that body. Immanent means from within, and this applies because he is part of this machine of information that shapes culture, he is in fact betraying it, and good on him. No structure needs this protection if it is in fact a moral actor, news would not need scrutiny if it were built on truth exclusively. No structure of power exists based on a right to exclude from all persons the objects in the world that consequently belong to few persons and are protected in their ownership by law, because that right has to be qualified at some point and continue to be justified. What I am saying is that power must have a component of consent from a majority towards conditions that are not optimal to their best interests, and that cannot be simply premised on force alone because a minority cannot exert might over a majority, it can only exert coercive force, and that coercion must be in the form of an argument. This argument becomes a law, and so gains the protection of real might (the state), but even then it cannot hold onto power if not by the complicity of a majority of the populous. The great threat to this is the counter argument that might undermine that fragile relation. This is why people like Brand, who does not have any other force than his media presence and the things he says, represent an enormous problem that must be solved before it gets out of hand (from the view of the established power).
The solution, in modernity, is to create the idea that he cannot tell truths because he is a man who enjoys sexual congress of a nature that may not be vanilla, or he cannot be allowed his platform because there is speculation concerning him. He may be debauched, but that itself does not mean that he has manipulated or taken advantage of vulnerability, it simply means that he is a bit frisky and open minded. As long as you are within consensual spaces in your sexual endeavours, you have committed no moral ill. Let’s speculate that Brand has been a bit of a perv, and that he has, like most men, a few ex-girlfriends that are disgruntled and disappointed that he has chosen to move forward with what he supposed at the time was a better option. Could we then speculate that they, the exes, might tell a story that indicated him as a bad guy? Might persons slighted or disappointed or angry and bitter be easily persuaded by journalists, promising the potential of mass media attention, and the fashionable position of being a victim, to tell a story that is not entirely any different than any other concerning break up or divorce that could be garnered from interviewing anyone’s ex?
I’m merely speculating, of course I have no idea whether he, or others that get accused, are actually guilty of anything. I do suspect however that there may be, and I have no evidence of this, a network of power, that we as citizens are unaware of but may have a general feeling about, that operates to time these scandals to come into the public mass consciousness just as they are most effective and useful. You could say that is ridiculous, but how often does it happen that the government, facing a real criticism about a real issue, is saved by the bell of a scandal story that takes over all copy and air. Current to this Brand story is the revelation that for many years the party in power has been ignoring what they already knew about the school buildings that needed maintenance. These buildings are now dangerous to children and public anger could grow. The rulers are already on the ropes, this could be a knockout blow, one that I personally do not welcome since it lets the new administration get away with being or becoming awful as they reel back from promises (which is a lot easier when you know you’re going to win).
As to his sexual promiscuity, whose business is that other than his and his partners? Has he committed a crime, or just been insensitive as a partner, has he manipulated, has he coerced, has he forced? I don’t know, and at this point neither do you, that’s not a defence of him, but a call to maybe not jump to conclusions…
pinkfloydpsw's Blog 
Leave a comment