We’re publishing a guest post by blogger “Eugyppius”, where he reviews Bill Gates’s new book, How to Prevent the Next Pandemic. This post was originally published on Eugyppius’s Substack account, which you can subscribe to here.
For days now, I’ve been fighting my way through Bill Gates’s disturbing new book on How to Prevent the Next Pandemic, and I’ve found myself wondering about one question above all:
How are we to explain Gates, exactly?
I know that for many of you he is a calculating conspiratorial goon. Pretend for a moment that he’s not, though. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that he’s every inch the obtuse, naïve and self-important former software developer that he seems to be. How did he get this way, what does he even think he is doing, and what can it mean?
Remember that this man has billions of dollars. A whole world of unusual vices stands open to him: He could hire a mercenary army to invade some country and proclaim himself god-emperor for life. He could retire to a tropical island with his favourite mind-altering substances and a harem of nubile young women. He could do both at once, and other things besides. Instead, he has chosen the path of moral vanity, perhaps the least interesting vice of all, founding a ponderous grantmaking foundation and pooping around the globe in manboobs and ill-fitting polo shirts, pronouncing to all and sundry on subjects he hardly understands.
A commenter points me to Jeffrey Tucker, who, as it turns out, has done critical work towards developing a Theory of Gates. At Microsoft, Gates oversaw the development of poorly secured software overrun by computer viruses. Afterwards, Tucker notes, he
… started dabbling in other areas, as newly rich people tend to do. They often imagine themselves especially competent at taking on challenges that others have failed at simply because of their professional successes. Also by this point in his career, he was only surrounded by sycophants who would not interrupt his descent into crankiness.
And what subject did he pounce on? He would do to the world of pathogens what he did at Microsoft: he would stamp them out! He began with malaria and other issues and eventually decided to take on them all. And what was his solution? Of course: antivirus software. What is that? It is vaccines. Your body is the hard drive that he would save with his software-style solution.
At the beginning of the pandemic, I noted that Gates was pushing hard for lockdowns. His foundation was now funding research labs the world over with billions of dollars, plus universities and direct grants to scientists. He was also investing heavily in vaccine companies.
Early on in the pandemic, to get a sense of Gates’s views, I watched his TED talks. I began to realise something astonishing. He knew much less than anyone could discover by reading a book on cell biology from Amazon. He couldn’t even give a basic ninth-grade-level explanation of viruses and their interaction with the human body. And yet here he was lecturing the world about the coming pathogen and what should be done about it. His answer is always the same: more surveillance, more control, more technology.
Once you understand the simplicity of his core confusions, everything else he says makes sense from his point of view. He seems forever stuck in the fallacy that the human being is a cog in a massive machine called society that cries out for his managerial and technological leadership to improve to the point of operational perfection.
There’s a lot to recommend this view of Gates. It explains specific things, like Gates’s fondness for mRNA vaccines, a genetic equivalent of computer code. More than that, though, it elucidates Gates’s failure to appreciate the essential intractability of many ancient human problems. Gates dreams of saving mankind from disease and poverty – things that are so much a part of what it means to be human, that it seems an error to call them problems in the first place. We are mortal beings; not all of us can be wealthy; we’ll all die of something. Gates the software developer has no experience of problems like that.
The fundamental message of How to Prevent the Next Pandemic is that we can stop future pandemic events by doing all of the things that did not stop the last pandemic event, only more, faster and harder.
Gates can’t get enough of the World Health Organisation. He proposes expanding it with a 3,000-strong division of pandemic shock troops called the Global Epidemic Response and Mobilisation team. That is not a joke; he actually wants to call it GERM. He says it’ll be comprised of epidemiologists, geneticists, pharmaceutical experts, data systems people, diplomats, rapid responders, modellers and heaven knows who else. These people will jet around the world ensuring that an identical response is propagated instantly everywhere, so we can all endure the same catastrophic mistakes at the same time. A Corona tsar for every country, distributed from the same central depot.
Mass testing is another thing that is ‘great’ and that we need more of. Gates wants cheap home tests everywhere, “to make it easier for everyone to get tested and get results fast” (p. 64). He also wants central databases to log all these precious test results. Antigen tests are great, but more accurate rapid testing technologies are even better. And of course we need more genetic sequencing to understand the progress of outbreaks and identify who is doing the spreading. It’s a scene straight out of Brazil: You wake up in the morning, send your mandatory swab through the vacuum tube for testing at the Ministry of Health, and the virus police are kicking down your door while you’re waiting for the coffee to boil.
Probably the strangest moment in this extended paean to the collection and management of disease statistics is the praise Gates reserves for modellers. He thinks pandemic modelling “will eventually do better than the weather forecast” (p. 78), and he thinks modellers have been unfairly maligned by the press. He defends Neil Ferguson in particular:
In March 2020, Neil Ferguson, a highly respected epidemiologist at Imperial College, predicted that there could be more than 500,000 Covid deaths in the U.K. and more than 2 million in the U.S. over the course of the pandemic. That caused quite a stir in the press, but few reporters mentioned a key point that Ferguson had been very clear about: The scenario of his that made all the headlines assumed that people wouldn’t change their behaviour – that no one would wear masks or shelter in place, for instance – but of course that wouldn’t be the case in reality. (p. 80)
It’s hard to imagine that Gates has ever even seen Ferguson’s paper. The Imperial College team were wrong about everything. They were especially wrong about the mitigating effects different interventions would have, which was the whole point of bothering with lockdown-justifying models in the first place.
In another absurd moment, Gates pleads that “the level of uncertainty” in pandemic modelling “can be quite high.” He recalls one modeller’s estimate, from February 2020, that there were “570 cases in Washington state, with a 90% certainty that it was between 80 and 1,500. Any report that omitted the range of possibilities left out some pretty important context” (p. 80). You have to rub your eyes, reading stupid stuff like this. What use is a model that predicts that there might be not that many cases out there, or there might be quite a lot, and how is it any better than just guessing? The open secret about modelling, of course, is that it’s not even a serious attempt at prediction. Modellers are just clients of the containment regime, tasked with developing fancy scientific equations that justify intrusive NPIs. Gates even seems intermittently aware of this, at one moment conceding that Ferguson’s goal was “to show how high the stakes were” (p. 80) (but somehow “not [to] drive everyone into a panic”).
“Help People Protect Themselves Right Away” is the title of Chapter 4, where Gates lays out the case for keeping lockdowns and other containment measures in the pandemicist repertoire. He throws in that vile Fauci quote – “If it looks like you’re overreacting, you’re probably doing the right thing” – and indulges in what is by now one of the most tired arguments in the world:
The irony of NPIs is that the better they work, the easier it is to criticise the people who put them in place. If a city or state adopts them early enough, the case numbers will stay low, and critics will find it easy to say they weren’t necessary. (p. 86)
These pages are the most reprehensible in the whole book. Lockdowns have been an unmitigated disaster; they have ruined millions of lives and wrought untold economic destruction, and yet Gates, who lives in a 6,000 square-metre house and flies around the globe in private jets, waves away these costs with fake graphs and empty assurances that “lockdowns have clear benefits for public health” (p. 88).
Elsewhere, Gates vents his frustration that rich countries hoarded vaccine doses at the expense of the third world, but so great is his myopia that he fails to draw the obvious connection – that it was precisely his precious destructive lockdowns that drove the mad vaccination frenzy of 2021.
No, the costs of lockdowns remain beyond Gates, and in this he is no different than all the other oblivious well-off retirees, who have never thought twice about putting their neighbours out of business or condemning young children to eight hours of enforced masking every day. Climate lockdowns may have been a passing fantasy, but influenza lockdowns are something Gates remains deeply interested in. He even wonders if NPIs could be “paired with vaccines” to “eventually eradicate every strain of flu” (p. 96). Apparently, nobody has told the man that influenza has substantial animal reservoirs, from which it repeatedly jumps to humans.
In this formulaic endorsement of all the crazy policies that have been inflicted on humanity since 2020, two curiosities stand out. The first is Gates’s quiet but clear disillusionment with mRNA vaccines. The best thing he can find to say about them is that they were developed quickly; otherwise, he damns them with faint praise, at one point even writing that masks have been more effective. He dreams of new, better vaccines, indeed “universal vaccines” that can target multiple pathogens and that will provide “total protection” (p. 177) after a single dose. He also wonders about vaccines that can be delivered as a nasal spray, like the “imaginary vaccine for the hypothetical virus depicted in the movie Contagion” (p. 174), and that don’t have to be kept cold. Despite all of Gates’s software geek mRNA enthusiasm, these lines show he’s wondering if another approach wouldn’t have been better. The mRNA molecules decay quickly at normal temperatures, and technology for an mRNA nasal spray vaccine is years away.
The second eccentric moment, is Gates’s seventh chapter, called “Practice, practice, practice”, where he fantasises about all the pandemic war-games we need to have. Table-top exercises are great; “functional exercises” with “simulated disaster[s]” are better; the absolute best is the “full-scale exercise” complete with crisis actors and helicopters.
Gates knows that he’s widely disliked, and that his inability to shut up has something to do with it:
One side effect of speaking out … is that it has provoked more of the criticisms of the Gates Foundation’s work that I’ve been hearing for years. … Bill Gates is an unelected billionaire – who is he to set the agenda on health or anything else? Three corollaries of this criticism are that the Gates Foundation has too much influence, that I have too much faith in the private sector as an engine of change, and that I’m a technophile who thinks new inventions will solve all our problems. (p. 16)
Gates has no real answer to these charges, pleading only that his foundation doesn’t work “in secret,” that they consult “outside experts”. As for technophilia, he is unapologetic:
Innovation is my hammer, and I try to use it on every nail I see. As a founder of a successful technology company, I am a great believer in the power of the private sector to drive innovation. But innovation doesn’t have to be just a new machine or a vaccine, as important as those are. It can be a different way of doing things, a new policy, or a clever scheme for financing a public good. (p. 17)
Innovation, in Gatesland, always works the same way: In the beginning there is a grave problem, which for some reason nobody has noticed or cared about before. Then, there appears an Innovator, very often a woman or a racial minority. This blessed Innovator proposes a simple and obvious solution, which requires mainly grant funding. Thereafter, the problem is no more, and the world is better.
Thus we have the story of Bernard Olayo, who solved the problem of oxygen:
Oxygen is an important component in any health system … and … low- and middle-income countries have struggled [to supply it]. Bernard Olayo, a health specialist at the World Bank, is trying to do something about it … In 2014, Olayo created an organisation called Hewatele – the Swahili word for “abundant air” … With funding from local and international investors, Hewatele built oxygen plants at several of the busiest hospitals in the country … It devised a milkman model: Oxygen cylinders would regularly be dropped off at remote hospitals and clinics, and empty cylinders returned for a refill. Using this new approach, Hewatele cut the market price for oxygen in Kenya by 50% and reached some 35,000 patients. (p. 119)
Or the story of Stephaun Wallace, who is solving the problem of demographically uniform trial participants by recruiting “a diverse pool of volunteers from different genders, communities, races, ethnicities and age groups” (p. 169). Or the story of Sister Astridah Banda, who “is not a doctor but … is passionate about public health” (p. 175), and who is helping to combat Corona misinformation in Zambia by translating English advisories into local languages.
Gates likes to wrap up his anecdotes with statistics that sound good but don’t actually say very much about the success of his blessed innovations: “Her show now reaches more than 1.5 million people” (p. 176), he says.
Problem, innovation, solution, happy: This is how everything works according to Gates. It’s how Maurice Hilleman invented the mumps vaccine, it’s how Katalin Karikó developed mRNA technology, it’s how James Lind discovered a cure for scurvy:
In May 1747, a physician named James Lind was serving as a ship’s surgeon … He was horrified by the number of sailors who were suffering from scurvy. No one knew at the time what caused scurvy, but Lind wanted a cure, so he decided to try various options and compare the results … The citrus treatment won out. … Although the British navy wouldn’t make citrus a required part of a sailor’s diet for nearly fifty years, Lind had found the first real evidence of a cure for scurvy. He had also run what is widely regarded as the first controlled clinical trial of the modern era. (p. 125)
If you look a little deeper, though, you’ll find that almost nothing ever works like Gates claims it does. Lind is a great example. The knowledge that scurvy was diet-related, and that fresh fruits or vegetables could cure it, had been around for centuries. Lind presented the results of his experiment only in passing; he never promoted citrus as the primary remedy, and scurvy continued to plague sailors until well into the twentieth century. It wasn’t poor nutritional discipline that caused scurvy outbreaks, but the logistical problem of maintaining fresh food stores on long voyages. And proving the citrus fruit cure wasn’t enough; without a deeper understanding of Vitamin C, Lind’s solution was incomplete and unstable, doomed to be disputed, forgotten and rediscovered over and over.
Simple, straightforward problems, of the sort that can be rectified through the genius of an innovator and the beneficence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are so rare that that there aren’t enough to stock even Gates’s carefully chosen catalogue of innovationist parables. Most of what faces us are complex, difficult and multilayered problems, solutions to which will require developments across multiple fields and new cultural and social understandings. The empowered innovator is a convenient myth, and this persistent belief that we are just One Cool Trick away from solving things like viruses is a dangerous, destructive illusion.
Gates, the retired software engineer who can’t distinguish between digital and biological viruses, is one, specific theory of the man. In reading How to Prevent the Next Pandemic, though, I’ve come to formulate another, more general theory. This is simply that, far from being a conspiratorial and calculating agenda-setter, Gates is a follower. He spends his days chasing down bureaucrats and politicians and scientists, pestering them for meetings, currying favour, asking them what to think and eagerly repeating everything they tell him in childish, oversimplified prose to anybody who will listen.
He loves dropping names. Barely has he started writing, than he’s telling us about his “first call with Anthony Fauci,” a man he’s “lucky to have known… for years… long before he was on the cover of pop-culture magazines”. Gates “wanted to hear what he was thinking”; he “wanted to understand what he was saying publicly… so” he “could help by echoing the same points” (p. 15). You can see Gates now, the strange bespectacled boy at the front of the class, begging teacher for the answer.
In another unguarded moment, Gates mentions attending a meeting in March 2020 while feeling sick; masking would’ve been the obvious thing to do, given his faith in them, but “the CDC hadn’t recommended masks yet” (p. 110), so he didn’t bother. Elsewhere, Gates lectures his readers on the virtuous and hardworking nature of medical bureaucrats; he calls them “unsung heroes” and warns against anyone who might be “bad-mouthing” them (p. 160). And in a bizarre Afterword on his hopes for a “digital future”, Gates enthuses about how much easier our newfound reliance on screens has made it for him to stay in touch with “political leaders”. “Pre-pandemic,” he worried that asking for a video call “would have been seen as less respectful than meeting in person” (p. 238), but now videoconferencing is the norm, so he feels better about pinging them whenever he wants their attention.
Gates-as-follower explains the most obtrusive aspect of How to Prevent the Next Pandemic, namely the total absence from its pages of any original thought. Gates doesn’t know anything except what his small clique of court experts tells him. That masks don’t work, that pandemic modelling has been a laughable failure, that it is the human immune system and not technology that places the ultimate constraints on vaccine potential, that corona and influenza viruses have massive animal reservoirs – he has no idea about any of this. Gates is part of an ominous development, a new breed of low-brow elite who present themselves as leaders, while eagerly following every source of celebrity and authority they know. Thus modern society is increasingly caught in dangerous, self-reinforcing feedback loops, a massive ant-wheel, a world of dogs chasing their tails, with nobody in charge. A Davos-directed conspiracy would be some comfort, but our car is heading for the cliff and absolutely nobody is driving. That’s much, much worse.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is silly celebrity gossip for tabloids. I hope we are not going to start with this kind of crap on this website
You might be missing the point.
Russell Brand is constantly criticising establishment narratives and has a huge following.
He is someone who for better or worse stirs the public up and turns them against authority.
It is being suggested that he is going to be taken down for that with spurious allegations.
As they have done with others like Assange (rape), Bridgen (anti-semitism), Trump (insurrection).
Others they debank, like Farage or Toby Young.
And Tommy Robinson!
Well perhaps you should go read the Mailonline . They have twenty articles on this cretin today
What’s silly is you not seeing the bigger picture…
Yep I see bigger pictures and you might and might not have noticed that in other comments I make. ———My point here is that I don’t want the Daily Sceptic to turn into the Mailonline, with celebrity gossip as the main headlines.
Looks like for a change I am suffering a heavy defeat on this one. Well you can’t win them all huh? But I don’t feel the need to support a cretinous goon just because he is supposedly perceived as some kind of anti establishment hero. I can find plenty of non cretinous goons to support.
Judging by the number of downticks you’ve gathered not everyone agrees with you! I must be in the minority as I agree that a scrote like Brand is not worthy of the DS.
Those downtickers should watch those cornflakes they are munching on this morning. I think they might be a bit tainted. ——-But then again it’s all down to personal taste what?
That’s freedom of speech in our democracy. You can say anything you want so long as no one is paying attention to you.
However, say something the establishment doesn’t like and you have a large audience, get ready to be taken down.
Anti-semetism and sexual abuse,are the goto methods of attack.
Let’s see what they’ve concocted for Brand.
Bang on! But like trump, this may backfire and make him even more popular! Here’s hoping
Yes – I hope so.
Trouble is, the sheeple glued to MSM will only remember him for the Andrew Sachs business donkey’s years ago, and lap up whatever C4 have scraped together.
I think we have to leave the sheeple grazing in the field of ignorance. They aim’t coming with us.
You mean misremember him for the Andrew Sachs business. Russell Brand was entirely blameless, it was actually all Jonathan Ross’s fault AND the BBC editors who allowed the programme to be broadcast without editing out the bits that were offensive to Andrew Sachs and his daughter.
It was not a live programme, so if it was so offensive, why did the BBC allow it to be broadcast twice?
Didn’t know the broadcast wasn’t live and I have only a vague recollection of the incident (as will thousands of others). If you are correct, then of course the BBC and JR must take their share of the blame.
Commenting on Sunday pm, it seems Sachsgate forms only a small part of this hit piece; all allegations and trial by social media.
RB has a past and it has come back to bite him on the bum, but I believe he has changed along with his ditching the booze and drugs. He’s certainly highlighted some journalism that MSM wouldn’t touch, and that makes him a prime target.
I think we can guess.
Many of the big ‘awake’ accounts who oppose the forthcoming transnational bio-digital-environmental tyranny are now calling for revolution as disenchantment in the ballot box grows.
Russell Brand is charismatic, honest and articulate with a loyal following far greater than C4, The Times and BBC News channel combined – he is the perfect focal point for the leadership of a revolutionary movement.
It has been decided that he has become too powerful and therefore must go.
Matrix attack…
Marxtrix attack…
Maastricht atteck
Corporatrix attack!
Not dissimilar to Che Guevara!
Che Guevera said this “Youth should learn to think and act as a mass. It is criminal to think as individuals!”
Would Mr Brand agree with that.
I think he has more of a Jesus type vibe to him these days.
They won’t be able to get away with this attack as easily as they have done with others in the past. I believe that Russel Brand’s supporters will push back relentlessly – as indeed will Brand himself.
This reminds me of that old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Can’t you find a non moron to lead your revolution?
This is so transparent though isn’t it? Russell Brand has had a target on his back for ages now because he’s intelligent and fearless in his approach to challenging the official narratives and establishment, ergo he’s clearly a threat to TPTB, especially given his huge audience. What’s happening to him is also further confirmation that we don’t really have free speech at all ( hence the net of online censorship continually tightening around our activity, even on this site ) and democracy is an illusion.
What I will say though, if any of these allegations turn out to be sexual assault then I will be *seriously* p*ssed off because that significantly undermines the plight of genuine victims of this crime and to think that ‘TPTB’ would sink so low as to fabricate some BS accusations with zero evidence, just to go all out in a coordinated character assassination and with the intent of destroying Russell’s reputation is incredibly sick and low. However, he has such a loyal following that nobody’s going to believe a thing that emerges and it all just smacks of desperation.
Is this the threat so many politicians, business leaders etc face today? Subscribe and pay homage to the narrative, do as we say, or expect to have your life destroyed?
These allegations are of events some ten years ago, why now? I believe we can be sure that had Brand not made crystal clear to millions the absurd, in our face, lying duplicity that passes for politics and news these days or interviewed those they sought to exclude and silence such as Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson, he would not be facing these allegations today,
ALEX BELFIELD , anyone ???.. add him to the list , as stated on here by Stewart , if you get too big an audience telling plausible truths against tptb you will be besmirched or worse !
I think we should perhaps wait to see what the programme contains before getting too outraged.
If brand has to pre-defend himself ,then its not going to be anything good!
He has more than hinted about that in the video, by saying that he has been promiscuous in the past, but that all of his sexual encounters have been completely consensual.
I’ve never had much time for Brand; I don’t find him remotely funny, rather irritating, in fact. I’ve watched a few of his interviews with people I’m interested in, where he usually turns off the babble and listens.
Nevertheless, many others do like him; he’s got over 11 million followers on Twitter, well over 6 million on YouTube, and well over a million on Rumble. He spends his time challenging the mono-narrative. This paints a target on his back.
Lo and behold, arch-establishment defender of the progressive elites, Channel 4, and arch-establishment defender of the technocratic centre, the ToL, are apparently going to launch a full-scale assault on him later today.
Now, it’s entirely possible he is guilty of sexual offences; Twitter tells me that such allegations may have swirled around him for years, so we have to wait and see what they have. However, I am slightly puzzled as to why, if there is clear evidence, he has not been arrested and questioned and/or prosecuted for them in the past.
Something seems very off when Channel 4 go to the length of making a 90-minute programme about him to air their allegations. Why have they not gone straight to the police/CPS? Maybe they will, or the police will take an interest after making what I anticipate will be a full-on hatchet job and personality attack to undermine his message and poison public sentiment towards him.
Meanwhile, Epstein’s clients walk around, untroubled by any significant legacy media investigations. Strange, that.
Your first sentence describes exactly how I’ve always thought about Brand, I never understood the appeal. But then I just ignored him, never considered he should be cancelled or taken down, many other people clearly did like him.
I do know that he’s been showing some serious cajones in the past few years bucking the narrative, and by and large I’d probably agree with him (only saw a couple of minutes here and there). But exactly what you said – if any of these allegations are true, waiting till now just means they are out to get him, not that they care about any alleged victims or something as humdrum as the law. A mistake, I think it will fire up more people, if even someone like me who does not particularly care for him thinks this is very, very wrong and is already prepared to side with Brand. Let’s see if his colleagues have the balls to support him.
I’m curious to see who else is in the firing line, apparently it’s not just about him. I wonder if they’ll be going after Neil Oliver or Laurence Fox? Never thought I would be living in a 21st century version of Soviet Russia and Stalinist persecution, particularly in countries like the UK and the US.
Agreed but, ‘cojones’. ‘Cajones’ are drawers.
I know. You can only edit a post within a few minutes, and there’s no need to correct it in a separate reply, as some schoolmarm will come along to do it for you.
I am guilty sometimes of putting yours instead of your’s, but by the time I notice it it’s too late. ——-But like you I have never had much time for the likes of Brand. Just because he is seen as anti the authorities, people on here seem to sweep his despicable behaviours under the carpet. I can think of better people than this to listen to as my anti-establishment hero.
MSM want to shut Brand down, I think they will have the opposite effect
Maybe time to do a Huw and go into the Priory until it all dies down.
Has he come out yet?
I saw Brand live last year – not a big fan, but went along with a chum who has a major crush on him. I was struck, not so much with his edginess or comedy (although enjoyed the anti-establishment stream of consciousness thing he does), but by his almost painful personal transparency: he’s more open about his life and past transgressions than I am about my weekly shopping bill. He’s had a target on his back for a long time, and it looks like C4 drew the short straw for this particular hatchet job. They may well be taking on far more than they realise given the amount of global support Brand has – and I hope they reap their just rewards for doing so.
For those of a religious persuasion (as he is), a prayer or two in his direction wouldn’t go amiss.
You’re making a very good point – reality is chaotic, not algorithmic. No matter what the intentions of the PTB may be in humiliating him, this can go in all sorts of unpredictable ways. And as it happens, I feel that it just might.
Russell has been very vocal in his criticism of the ‘narrative’ and it has been very refreshing watching a ‘lefty’ slowly, or quickly realising there is some pretty bad stuff going on in the name of ‘being kind’ or ‘saving lives’ or ‘saving the planet’. Therefore the ‘Politburo’ are moving to de-person him. What were the chances of this happening?
Given Brand’s very serious, even disturbing, entanglement with the dark forces in the past, he has always been an easy target for a public take-down like the one that’s coming.
Charismatic and articulate as he is, and seemingly enlightened as he presents himself these days, it was a matter of time for this to happen.
So, they want us all talking about Russell Brand for a week or so whilst something else is happening. Maybe the signing of the Pandemic Treaty or The G20 Digital ID agreement or something WW3 related.
So why did C4 not pass on their “information” to the Police, if it is so damaging?
I think that’s pretty obvious.
They’ll use this to smear by association. There’ll be lots of footage with him talking to Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and others that TPTB don’t like.
Saw a hit post on RB looking at X over wife’s shoulder ( I’m not on it ) saying he’s a mate of Klaus & a Mason of sorts ! Surely not
Also – please has anyone got the dirt on Belfields conviction ! Was it right & proper ??.. 5 years !!!…
Brand’s challenges and exposure of the globalist cabal and complicity of the main stream media is clearly getting through, and his audience is getting big enough to require a hatchet job and likely lawfare against him as is the modus operandi of the Blob against those to be silenced and excommunicated who haven’t actually done anything wrong, but claims and accusations tie them up in defence – and the ‘no smoke without fire’ slur will stick.
noticed no comments on the daily mail article
No comments allowed on any of the many Mail pieces on him today. And they usually allow comments on pretty much everything!
To the woke down thumber..
Why has it taken 15 years and the efforts of a woke media organisation for these allegations to come to light???
Please answer.. If you can
I downvoted you, Jon, because it sounds an awful lot to me like you’re describing and legitimising rape. That’s why I’m asking you to clarify your post. Are you being sarcastic?
I think you need to define what you mean by “taken by force” because you’re sailing very close to the wind with language like that and you’ve ran out of editing time. I know what my interpretation of that is, and it’s definitely nothing positive, but I’d like you to clarify your post before I jump to conclusions.
You’ve already jumped to conclusions….
Well here we have the point Mogs… You’ve jumped right in..
basically calling what occurred between 2 consenting adults as rape
Point made
It doesn’t matter what OUR definition of “force” is.. What’s that got to do with anyone else???
We were consenting adults, she enjoyed a bit of rough sex and so did I occasionally….
Sounds like you need to grow up and realise these things happen in the real world…. Have you never taken drugs Migs?
“I know I’ve taken my partner by force before in certain relationships…” How is any woman meant to interpret that? Well keep it as is if you like but I’d ask the DS team to remove it as it’s definitely open to misinterpretation, in my opinion.
This is the point….. Can’t you see why I posted what I did..
Your “interpretation”….. Channels 4 interpretation..
The courts interpretation…. About 2 adults having sex 15 years ago..
How ludicrous can society get
My post is getting to the exact issue about Brand here, it’s a personal experience, so why would you wish it taken down..
I hoped this forum was woke free
So you can’t bear to hear /read something that doest align with your personal ideology and want it removed..
You know what Mogs.. I’m done and you should go work for Channel 4 and try your hardest to get Brand convicted..
I’m sure you’d be happy then… Well that’s after getting my post removed
“Sounds like you need to grow up..” Yeah, says the man who presumes all women like to be “taken by force” and if they don’t they’re liars. Very dodgy territory there, Jon.
No I didn’t say that…
So you think you can dictate what 2 consenting adults can and can’t do in the bedroom.. Where on earth are you at
Mogs, have you ever heard of Bondage?
I feel for Brand, it’s going to be extremely difficult to fight these allegations in this feminised world we live in
Consensual sex becomes rape 15 years later….
People need to realise various sexual activities occur in the bedroom,, It’s not all missionary position…. Some are into Bondsge.. even….wow!
I see you got your wishes and had my posts removed Mogs..
Can’t be having a serious accurate debate can we now
I don’t know what your post was, but there was a post yesterday (can’t remember the name of the poster) from a man who said he’d forced himself upon women in the past and was asking whether that was rape!!!! Incredible. And, yes, for any men left in the country who don’t understand, that is rape.
And, I’m not a young woman. I’m 65. Somehow, in 40 years, my husband has managed never to do that to me.
Are you saying we a have complaints department on here and that your posts have been removed because a complainer complained?
Yea yea yea, we know the narrative…
Can’t be a man anymore it’s all “toxic masculinity”
So Brands a narcissist and liked shagging around…
I have mixed feelings here…I’ve always found RB rather odious and cringe-making, but people I know and love are fans. The allegations made on the programme last night were certainly dreadful and the clips of his stage acts did nothing to improve my opinion of him. On the other hand, BBC Internet News is headlining a ‘testimony’ from an (alleged) victim that includes this ‘I swear to God…his eyes had no more colour…they were black, like a different person literally entered his body’. I mean…what?!