Bond and Brand

I imagine you’ve all been across the allegations levelled at Russell Brand over the past few days. Whether to believe the accusations or not is something I don’t care to discuss. Trial by social media is, in my opinion, all sorts of wrong.

But I was watching a Piers Morgan panel discuss which could be described as the issue of predatory v promiscuity, and an exchange at the end of video got me thinking about Bond’s brand (pun absolutely intended). The section at the end of the clip is linked below (embedding the video here to begin at a certain time doesn’t work).

https://youtu.be/2vq51eoB9-k?si=7S4u1fVF4RuxUyg5&t=839

“Wild, boastful” celebration of promiscuity is perhaps something that is shameful, if only due to the arrogance and unlikeability of the person bragging (and of course, provided that the woman remains anonymous. If she’s not then it becomes without question, obnoxious behaviour). Equating Brand’s broadcasting of his promiscuity to that of a rockstar having sex with fangirls is a different story. Consensual sex is and always will be about power. That’s part of the attraction. And I don’t recall rockstars being as boastful and as Brand ever was.

To say this is a cultural/societal problem is, I imagine, going to have some interesting effects on Bond’s character, particularly in this transition into the introduction of a new actor in the role. Bond isn’t one to kiss and tell, but he is a womaniser. Indeed No Time To Die shows Bond only with Madeleine making it one of the sexless Bond movies ever made, naturally a knee-jerk reaction to the #MeToo movement. So perhaps we’re already into this direction:

I fear conversations regarding promiscuity v predatory behaviour will provoke a black-and-white response to the issue. There’s no in between. Sex is a healthy instinct. Bond uses sex for a variety of reasons - most relatable is to simply enjoy a woman (Sylvia, Plenty, Inga) and to numb (Jinx, Fields), or to advance his assignment (Tanya, Fiona, Andrea, May Day, Paris). And anyone should see that Bond’s treatment of Pussy and Tanya in particular is because Bond is a licenced-to-kill spy dealing with, at these points in their respective stories, morally questionable women whereby, if he can’t get through to them, can have devastating consequences. He is using the tools in his toolbox. Sex, for spies historically and globally, is one of those tools. That in part is what makes the character and world of Bond so exciting. It taps into a world of danger, intrigue and fantasy, rooted in our animalistic instinct of sex. It appears the panel's conversation highlights that society shouldn’t celebrate men’s promiscuity, that we need to “change the culture”. But again, there’s a difference between promiscuity and predatory behaviour (though it’s true in some cases Bond is seen to be predatory, perhaps most glaringly is his cornering of Patricia Fearing).

Ironically, and hypocritically, progressives over the course of last century became less and less rigid regarding sexuality, piquing perhaps in the late 60s with counter-culture. Third and fourth wave feminism has all been about the sexual empowerment of women, and to cancel “slut shaming” and now it seems they want society to revert back to the prudish morale of the early 20th century. And again, part of the reason Bond resonated in the 50s and 60s for both men and women was because it underpinned the desire to live life. Indeed the shadow of WWII played into that.

Maybe we need another one.

Once you accept that the so-called progressives have no purpose beyond subverting Western societies, you realise that irony and hypocrisy (or doublethink as Orwell may have put it) is a feature not a bug. To subvert societal norms, in the 60's you had to be a libertine; six decades on, the strategy has shifted to sexless prudishness. The goal is the same, however.

Brand has been outspoken about the crimes and nefariousness of various powerful people the last few years, so no wonder they are coming after him hard. He is probably too popular to ignore. If you mess with the wrong people, they will label you a white supremacist, a Russian asset or a rapist. Or just take you out if possible.

Brand may well be a total scuzbucket, but compared to the people who rule the West, from DC to Davos, he is a paragon of morality and a spotless saint. Listening to our "elites" prate on about sexual morality is akin to attending a symposium of porn stars preaching the virtues of chastity.

Spot on about that, PK. Of course the usual suspects Alphabet and Meta have already sentenced him. Thankfully not everyone works for those scumbags. Some have a different view.
https://reclaimthenet.org/rumble-rejects-uk-government-censorship-pressure

Yeah, I'm sure there's nothing to it.

So he has even killed people, how sick.

Maeve Horton wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure there's nothing to it.

Savile thing is particularly skin-crawling.

Phantom Commander wrote:

So he has even killed people, how sick.

No, but remember there's many a foul thing said in jest.

Maeve Horton wrote:

Phantom Commander wrote:

So he has even killed people, how sick.

No, but remember there's many a foul thing said in jest.

Even if he did, that would not be his real crime. We all know that.

Phantom Commander wrote:

Maeve Horton wrote:

Phantom Commander wrote:

So he has even killed people, how sick.

No, but remember there's many a foul thing said in jest.

Even if he did, that would not be his real crime. We all know that.

Well, it would be to a court of law. Anyway, I don't want to pre-judge this man. These allegations have to be tested in a court of law if need be. Trial by media doesn't convict anyone. I don't buy his excuses about "them" (whoever "they" are) being out to get him though - it's straight out of the Trump book of tricks and it doesn't wash any more. It's just deflection and it only takes us away from the matter at hand - whether or not sexual crimes have been committed by this celebrity figure. Not everything is a conspiracy - sometimes people in positions of relative power and fame abuse their elevated position - just look at Sir Jimmy Savile for a recent example.

Maeve Horton wrote:

Phantom Commander wrote:

Maeve Horton wrote:

Phantom Commander wrote:

So he has even killed people, how sick.

No, but remember there's many a foul thing said in jest.

Even if he did, that would not be his real crime. We all know that.

Well, it would be to a court of law. Anyway, I don't want to pre-judge this man. These allegations have to be tested in a court of law if need be. Trial by media doesn't convict anyone. I don't buy his excuses about "them" (whoever "they" are) being out to get him though - it's straight out of the Trump book of tricks and it doesn't wash any more. It's just deflection and it only takes us away from the matter at hand - whether or not sexual crimes have been committed by this celebrity figure. Not everything is a conspiracy - sometimes people in positions of relative power and fame abuse their elevated position - just look at Sir Jimmy Savile for a recent example.

I couldn't possibly care less about this Brand guy, but if he was tight with Obama, Zelensky, Sauros, Schwab, etc., we wouldn't have even heard of these allegations. If you've got a big megaphone and you make nasty noises about the Power Structure, then you will have a very bright target on your back. We live in a world of obvious political persecution, and, month-by-month, it is becoming geometrically worse.

Brand used to speak up in favour of Bernie Sanders and cosy up to the UK Labour Party ... now, he's on YouTube spouting Right-leaning conspiracy theories. He's a grifter who 'blows with the wind' towards whatever will garner him the most attention (and money).

Funny how the activities of the 'mainstream media' never bothered him overly when it was his chief employer.

Thankfully, people are allowed to change their minds.

I have not followed him closely, so cannot judge, but I cannot see he has been charged with any crimes, and I do know that the news outlets who smeared him have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
The whole thing reeks of British "intelligence".

It’s laughable he’s been accused of being right-wing when he’s still clearly brandishing communist sensibilities. Though perhaps he's that far left he’s starting to turn right.

BI wrote:

Brand used to speak up in favour of Bernie Sanders and cosy up to the UK Labour Party ... now, he's on YouTube spouting Right-leaning conspiracy theories. He's a grifter who 'blows with the wind' towards whatever will garner him the most attention (and money).

And yet it doesn’t seem all farfetched when a British MP-- and from what I understand, a conservative one at that-- openly undermines due process to destroy someone and their livelihood based on allegations.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

It’s laughable he’s been accused of being right-wing when he’s still clearly brandishing communist sensibilities. Though perhaps he's that far left he’s starting to turn right.

BI wrote:

Brand used to speak up in favour of Bernie Sanders and cosy up to the UK Labour Party ... now, he's on YouTube spouting Right-leaning conspiracy theories. He's a grifter who 'blows with the wind' towards whatever will garner him the most attention (and money).

And yet it doesn’t seem all farfetched when a British MP-- and from what I understand, a conservative one at that-- openly undermines due process to destroy someone and their livelihood based on allegations.

She may be a "conservative," but she's no rightwinger. Such people have effectively been removed from the halls of power in the Western world.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

It’s laughable he’s been accused of being right-wing when he’s still clearly brandishing communist sensibilities. Though perhaps he's that far left he’s starting to turn right.

BI wrote:

Brand used to speak up in favour of Bernie Sanders and cosy up to the UK Labour Party ... now, he's on YouTube spouting Right-leaning conspiracy theories. He's a grifter who 'blows with the wind' towards whatever will garner him the most attention (and money).

And yet it doesn’t seem all farfetched when a British MP-- and from what I understand, a conservative one at that-- openly undermines due process to destroy someone and their livelihood based on allegations.

That very same MP oversaw the construction of the "Online Safety Bill", for which the Crown made her a Dame, of course.
None of this is to protect us, it is about protecting themselves.

Phantom Commander wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

It’s laughable he’s been accused of being right-wing when he’s still clearly brandishing communist sensibilities. Though perhaps he's that far left he’s starting to turn right.

BI wrote:

Brand used to speak up in favour of Bernie Sanders and cosy up to the UK Labour Party ... now, he's on YouTube spouting Right-leaning conspiracy theories. He's a grifter who 'blows with the wind' towards whatever will garner him the most attention (and money).

And yet it doesn’t seem all farfetched when a British MP-- and from what I understand, a conservative one at that-- openly undermines due process to destroy someone and their livelihood based on allegations.

That very same MP oversaw the construction of the "Online Safety Bill", for which the Crown made her a Dame, of course.
None of this is to protect us, it is about protecting themselves.

Just catching up on the Online Safety bill now. Giving tech companies power over what’s communicated online? Haven’t these people watched Tomorrow Never Dies? Or perhaps they have.

On that sort of thing ... Rupert Murdoch retired last week, and took a pop at 'elites' in his retirement statement. It fascinates me that a man whose newspapers, TV channels etc had huge influence on politics etc and made him a billionaire clearly (weirdly?) sees the 'elite' as other people.