Alienated Blackmail: Getting People On Old Sh*t

A fart lingers in a room for a long time. Why wait to say something?

When I read accusations against people, I see it through the lens of having been lied about by a large media outlet. In 2011, I was in the midst of two things: criticizing various lifestyle influencers for their marketing and getting catfished. One of the subjects of my criticism was a beauty blogger actively hawking plastic surgery to her pre-teen girl audience. She dug into my life and realized the person I was in a long-distance relationship with wasn’t who they said they were and spun it into a story about me making up a girlfriend “to seem cool.”

Another subject of my criticism, who became extremely popular posting other people’s videos on his channel without permission or attribution, saw an opportunity and posted her story. It got 77,000+ likes on Facebook and was recounted by Gawker within days (the article's author was later fired for saying the n-word).

Now, the accusations against me were false. I didn’t “make up a girlfriend to seem cool,” I was actually the victim of a deception. However, there were elements of truth to the story; the person I was in a relationship with at the time really wasn’t who they claimed they were.

So, whatever is true, it’s been spun – for a reason. And if I had acted in a manner that was not a threat to various peoples’ interests, it probably would not have been weaponized against me.

With that in mind, they’re trying to get Russell Brand on old shit…

12 Steps

Five women have accused Brand of rape and sexual assault. Brand responded that all of his relationships have been consensual. For me, a person outside the situation, this is two different parties who are relying on their own word being taken. There is one situation that sticks out, which is Brand having a relationship with a 16-year-old at 31. Now, 16 is the age of consent in the UK (and many states in America), so this isn’t a crime. That seems to be the primary defense I see surrounding it, too.

This makes me wary of defending Brand. While not technically illegal, a 16-year-old is not an adult and shouldn’t be making adult decisions. Charges obviously can’t be brought for that, but it doesn’t make his actions sound great, nor does it make the defense “all of my relationships were consensual” sound strong.

So, is this really about holding Russell Brand, a known addict in recovery and ardent advocate of 12-step programs, “accountable” for his actions? Because… it just doesn’t seem like it to me.

First, someone extremely dear to me is a recovered addict. It’s really, really easy to hold things from an addict’s past against them. So easy that one might not realize they are doing so (I didn’t). Part of my 12-step journey has been understanding and integrating a different paradigm with this whole aspect of things.

On one hand, yes, Russell Brand (or any addict) “did those things.” Yes, they are accountable for their actions. Everyone is.

On the other, that is what recovery is about.

I’m in the middle of writing a documentary on the self-help industry, and (coincidentally) I’ve read Brand’s Recovery, which is basically him refocusing what he learned in 12-step programs into a self-help book. To say he is serious about the 12-step program would be a ridiculous understatement. The book is his attempt to translate the steps into general usage (and to make it easier for non-religious people, I think). Here are his “translations” of the steps:

1. Are you a bit fucked?

2. Could you not be fucked?

3. Are you, on your own, going to ‘unfuck’ yourself?

4. Write down all the things that are fucking you up or have ever fucked you up and don’t lie or leave anything out.

5. Honestly tell someone trustworthy about how fucked you are.

6. Well that’s revealed a lot of fucked-up patterns. Do you want to stop it? Seriously?

7. Are you willing to live in a new way that’s not all about you and your previous, fucked-up stuff? You have to.

8. Prepare to apologize to everyone for everything affected by your being so fucked-up.

9. Now apologize. Unless that would make things worse.

10. Watch out for fucked-up thinking and behavior and be honest when it happens.

11. Stay connected to your new perspective.

12. Look at life less selfishly, be nice to everyone, help people if you can.

I believe that the support groups and their specific focuses (alcoholism, other addictions, codependency, etc.) are a large portion of why the steps work, so I’m not certain I entirely agree with Brand’s attempt to generalize them. However, he is clearly serious about them.

Further, if the conversation is truly about what Russell Brand has done, is he really trying to get away with anything? In the video he posted prior to the accusations being published, he characterized his behavior as promiscuous. Part of the 12 steps is doing a “fearless and searching moral inventory” (as Brand puts it, “Write down all the things that are fucking you up or have ever fucked you up and don’t lie or leave anything out”) and part of that is relationships and sexual conduct.

The purpose of this is to reckon with one’s mistakes, shortcomings, and harmful actions. The fact he labels his behavior as “promiscuous” and talks about the 12 steps as he does lends a connotation to the word specific to these programs. He does not see it neutrally but rather as a character flaw that he has had to address.

Now, the real events covered in the media are likely somewhere in between how he sees it and how they’re being portrayed. As I said in the intro, I know from experience that whatever kernel of truth is in what is being said, we are swimming in massively subjective waters here.

When I have held things against others that they were/are actively working on as part of a program, it was me not giving them the space to grow and change that they needed. This isn’t to say, “Give Russell Brand some space!” However, the idea he got clean and just moved on from all that shit without dealing with it and has remained sober is absurd. One sustains sobriety by dealing with that shit.

If that is or isn’t enough, I don’t know. I’m not here to defend Russell Brand. Whether he did or didn’t do these exact things, as an addict with money and fame, he likely did some fairly messed up stuff. Disorders and illnesses aren’t just quirky memes about being unable to understand sarcasm. And often, completely legitimate sexual assault allegations may take a long time to surface, as victimhood isn’t exactly free of stigma.

I don’t know Brand, nor do I know what he has or hasn’t done. But I know what I’ve seen. First, that dealing with your shit really helps. Second, I don’t think anything Russell Brand has or hasn’t done is the focus.

Conspiracy

It’s a running theme in coverage of the Brand allegations – what I see most prominently stated – is that Brand “spreads conspiracy theories.” Leading news outlets of the Western world (like The New York Times and The BBC) lead their stories on the matter with talk of conspiracy.

Earlier in the year, Brand went on Bill Maher’s show and argued with an MSNBC hack that his network was as biased (and therefore was the same level of propaganda) as Fox News (which I entirely agree with). Brand then went on a string of rants which had the usually pretty shitlib Bill Maher audience applauding. Rants about big pharma, about the perpetual crises of capitalism, and how, very often, experts that appear on both Fox and MSNBC act as mouthpieces for Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street (finance capital).

"If you have an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military-industrial complex benefits from war, where energy companies benefit from energy crises, you are going to get a state of perpetual crisis."

-Russell Brand on Bill Maher’s show

Brand’s appearance was extremely popular, and he went on to make a video corroborating everything he said with articles from the same reputable outlets that are attacking him now:

Of course, this causes outlets like The New Statesman to lament, “We have lost Russell Brand,” telling us that “this once-sexy communist has become an American culture wars pundit.”

Speaking on the comedian Bill Maher’s talk show last weekend, Brand launched into a tinny rant that encompassed every right-wing signalling trope: the ghoulish mainstream media, the dishonest and untrustworthy pharmaceutical industry, the West’s shameful treatment of Julian Assange and “American hero” Edward Snowden… He then pivoted leftwards, and rounded off his angry sermon with an endorsement for, erm, Bernie Sanders.

He has married these long-held [left-wing] beliefs with all the suspicions and anxieties of the new American right: America First, Drain The Swamp, distrust the MSM (mainstream media).

- “We Have Lost Russell Brand”

How telling it is that left-wing outlets never dug up allegations as he was a “sexy communist” steeped in promiscuity. No doubt, they could have – these allegations are supposedly “an open secret female comics have told each other about for years.” But at worst, sometimes he was labeled a “misogynist” for calling women “birds,” – never did they decide he was a predator.

And, again, how telling it is that once he begins to talk about “ghoulish mainstream media, the dishonest and untrustworthy pharmaceutical industry, the West’s shameful treatment of Julian Assange and ‘American hero’ Edward Snowden,” that is when they turn on him.

Seeing as a large element of his presence is centered on personal development and wellness, I’ve watched Brand’s content (again, I’m in the middle of writing a documentary on the self-help industry). What I have mentioned in this article is the level of “conspiracy” he engages in.

And he absolutely is wrong about some things! For instance, he supports The Main Degrowth Guy, Jason Hickel (he wrote the blurb on the back of Less is More, Hickel’s book). But I’m sometimes labeled a conspiracy theorist for disagreeing with Hickel and pointing out that finance capital supports degrowth.

YouTube recently demonetized Brand’s channel, likely at the behest of the UK government. I say this because Rumble, where Brand also posts, published a letter they received from the UK government asking they demonetize Brand’s channel. Rumble did not comply, saying, “We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so… Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble.”

One could make the case YouTube made its move because advertisers don’t want to be associated with someone with allegations hanging over their head. However, given these letters were confirmed to have been sent out to Rumble, Twitter, and TikTok, I don’t think that’s the reason. Further, there are an endless number of people on YouTube who have not denied similar, or worse, allegations (or even outright embraced them) who retain monetization.

What needs to be said is that Russell Brand has explicitly, repeatedly pointed to finance capital – the ruling class in imperial-stage capitalism – as “the bad guys.” I would argue (re: degrowth) that he doesn’t fully comprehend the extent to which it is appropriate to point at these companies and people.

His past is being used as a vehicle to attempt to characterize these criticisms as “conspiracy shit,” and that is being used as the substrate by which to call anyone who believes these conspiracies “gullible narcissists.”

“The Deep State Didn’t Frame Russell Brand, You Idiots!”

A few articles have been made to attempt to head off the assertion that the media is going after Brand for critiquing the ruling class. The first one comes from The Daily Beast, entitled “The Deep State Didn’t Frame Russell Brand, You Idiots.”

After a mountain of disclaimers to ensure no one attacks the article as anti-free speech or against due process, the article does everything possible to support all action against Brand (showing that free speech and due process are really not of the author’s concern). The article's tone is dismissive towards anyone expressing skepticism about the motive for the accusations against Brand, outwardly calling them “idiots” in the title and continuing to follow that line throughout. It also references figures like Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and Ben Shapiro, likely to paint a broad stroke to attempt to discredit skeptics by association.

It’s not the only article like this by a longshot. Newsweek peddled one titled “Russell Brand's Resurfaced Bill Maher Interview Sparks Conspiracy Theories” that hits all the same beats, going as far to say, “Fellow conservative podcaster and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has also come to his friend Brand's defense.” Repeat: “fellow conservative podcaster and conspiracy theorist.” Building on The New Statesman’s “We Have Lost Russell Brand” piece.

There is a package deal fallacy happening here. They’re saying if someone believes one of these things, they believe all of them:

1. Russell Brand has done nothing wrong.

2. Inconsistent monetization policy where two people with similar allegations get different treatment is inappropriate.

3. The motive behind publishing allegations against Russell Brand may not be entirely about the allegations.

4. DEMOCRATS ARE PEDOPHILES AND REPUBLICANS ARE NOT! THE ILLUMINATI!

This brings me to my ultimate point. This is an example of “getting people on old shit,” something the writers of Bojack Horseman deftly showed us several things about. Firstly, they showed that the titular character actually was trying his damnest to be a good person and was slowly improving.

Secondly, they showed that this isn’t simply a corner turned – Bojack is still hungry for external validation, responding to incentives that go against his recovery – and that a mantra of “progress, not perfection” is vital.

Third, they showed that one can not simply forget one’s past. Bojack had done some really fucked-up shit and hadn’t productively dealt with it.

And finally (they actually showed us more, but I’m trying to keep my scope limited), they showed that people like Biscuits Braxby are incentivized to use the bad deeds of troubled people to further their own interests.

Like I said, I am not here to defend Russell Brand. I don’t know whether he did or didn’t do any of the things mentioned, and the fact there is probably a kernel of truth to some of it makes me a little squeamish about certain aspects (again, high school-aged kids are kids). However, I am not a conservative, and neither is Russell Brand. It’s strange that left-wing outlets – supposedly the side that advocates for the class interests of the everyday person – characterize “mistrust in the mainstream media” (the media owned by the bourgeoisie, the capitalist ruling class) as conservative conspiracy shit.

Bojack’s belief that “they can’t get me on old shit” is the assumption that shit ages. Whether or not the media chooses to “get you” on something isn’t about how long it has been around. It is about whether it “makes sense to do.” Why is it that it took until 2023, when Brand went on a popular program and denounced the ruling class in a convincing, well-received way, to weaponize his past of “open secrets” against him?

Someone might think, “They can’t get me on old shit,” because they think “not getting me” is because they missed. The thing is, just because the bullet didn’t hit doesn’t mean the shot missed. Many shots are warning shots. "Trying to get you on old shit” is blackmail without the inference of it being so – alienated blackmail. There is old shit that hasn’t been leveraged, and it is now.

I say “alienated blackmail” because this is a form of manipulation where past actions are used as leverage without observable ultimatum. Just as commodity fetishism hides the labor and relationships behind a product, emphasizing only its market value, “alienated blackmail” removes the dynamics that make something explicitly blackmail. In traditional blackmail, the intent and coercive dynamics are overt – there’s an explicit threat or demand. Not so here; previously, Brand was allowed to exist with all these events in his past. But now he isn’t.

Things happen because of the conditions they exist in. Brand’s appearance was a condition. It created a response. That response doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. It certainly could have been; I don’t doubt the possibility of someone with money saying, “Look into Russell Brand, I guarantee you’ll find something. Use it to destroy him!”

But that doesn’t need to happen at all. This is alienated blackmail.

As George Carlin said, “You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge.” And here we come back to the most important aspect of absolutely every analysis of societal structures: class. The fundamental, material relationship of owning the means. What does finance capital (Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, etc.) have in common with MSNBC and Fox News?

Well, they’re the top institutional owners of Comcast (owners of MSNBC, left) and Fox Corporation (right).

We’re supposed to see people who see this as idiots. People who question the mainstream media are conservatives! People who see convergence of interest!? They think rape is fine!

And Russell Brand is the fulcrum for this. They are using their leverage on him. He broke the pact and was getting too big for his britches. Now he’s just a lesson for everyone to learn: “The rules don’t matter… until they do.”

Conclusion

I do not think the timing of this sudden resurrection of “old shit” by media outlets owned by the subjects of Russell Brand’s criticism should be regarded as coincidental. I also don’t think that necessitates reacting as if everything said here is bullshit.

But we’re also talking about things a recovering addict did nearly two decades ago. Do I care these things happened? Yes, and I hope Russell Brand does as well. Do I think they happened exactly as reported in the media? Probably not exactly, no. They’re likely somewhat exaggerated. Everything in the media is, especially when it is intended to have an effect.

This is “alienated blackmail.” No one says (or perhaps even thinks) anything, but it’s like someone says, “Behave, and it’s fine you did the things. You get a pass. But remember! We’re the ones with the authority to give you that pass. The calm around your situation happens because we decide it is calm. And should you step out of line, challenge the status quo, or threaten vested interests, be prepared for the storm.”

The past is not just history; it's ammunition. The skeletons in the closet are not dead; they're dormant. A delicate dance is at play where the rules are ever-shifting based on the whims and agendas of those in power.

Bojack’s “they can’t get me on old shit” was the first thing I thought of when I saw this situation begin. He thought old wounds wouldn’t be reopened, but they can be. That is alienated blackmail. The potential leverage as it exists within the set of incentives at play in today’s neoliberal social market. A lingering fart in a room where it’s obvious who did it.

When the tide turns, past mistakes are not just reminders of fallibility but shackles that can be tightened at will. This isn't justice in its truest sense; it's control. The power to judge, forgive, and condemn lies not in the hands of an objective truth but with those who own the megaphone. The question we must grapple with is not just the truth of these resurrected deeds… but why now? Why this emphasis? Why this framing?

Finally, at some point, we are going to have to deal with the fact that people who do bad things sometimes get better.