To head this article, I have used a slight titular twist taken from my 2023 piece, 'The Re-Branding of Russell', in which I explained what I believed Russell Brand's role in the world stage pantomime to be.

You can read the full piece here, but in short, I speculated that, in relation to the sexual assault allegations being made against him at the time, and for which he has now been convicted:

"The whole thing is being staged intentionally to undermine the credibility of "conspiracy theorists", as all the big "conspiracy" names have instantly jumped on the Brand bandwagon, so if it is confirmed he's an evil sex predator, their reputations (and by association, their political beliefs) will be trashed, too."

And when I said 'the whole thing' was being staged, I certainly meant to include actor and asset Brand in the performance.

In evaluating the likelihood of his being an authentic voice for truth (or anything else, for that matter) I said:

"Russell Brand has been a constant fixture in the establishment media for years, perennially presented to us as a super-in-demand stud, the womaniser of the millennium, and so on and so forth, and so now here he is with the inevitable "sex scandal".

Do I believe the allegations? Sure, probably - I mean, insofar as "do I believe he is guilty of doing very bad and possibly illegal things to women", yes. I believe this because very few people are permitted to ascend to such a dizzying level of talking-head fame as Brand has achieved without being a deeply disreputable character with various perversions and addictions that the deep state uses to control them. And Brand has made no secret of his various vices. If that's what he's prepared to be open about, it strongly suggests the real story is even darker - because it generally is with the super-famous.

It's always been this way and always will be. You don't achieve colossal international household-name levels of fame (to the extent men genuinely believe "all women are secretly in love with you") unless "they" own and control you, and the way "they" own and control you is through threats and blackmail over your vices. So, for everyone playing a prominent role on the world stage in terms of wielding very significant political/social influence, their handlers most likely have incriminating footage of them involving sex or drugs or both (or worse), and the ever-present threat of that footage being leaked and their careers destroyed is how they're kept in line.

For more on that (and if you've got a strong stomach), please read the book 'The Abuse of Power', which is a non-"conspiratorial" tome, written by a now elderly man who, in his early twenties and desperate for cash, got sucked into the seedy underbelly of London's "elite" sex trade - where his main clients were high-flying members of the country's political and social elite. The kind of things he described witnessing are horrific (and exactly in line with all the "conspiracy theories" about what the ruling classes get up to in private) and he names names.

He's never been sued for what he's written, and there is no reason not to believe what he says, so I do.

He explains this is how it is for all very powerful men - to achieve and maintain power, wealth, status, and influence, they have to be deeply compromised so they can be controlled. If they do not agree to participate in the kind of activities that would make them compromised, their career progression abruptly grinds to a halt and they never achieve the kind of fame where millions of people around the world know who they are.

Anyone who makes it to that level will have "dirt" on them, otherwise they're too much of a potential liability. A "clean" person with worldwide fame could change the world for the better, so that will never be allowed - only "dirty" people who can be controlled through fear of exposure are allowed to become very visible and influential in a way that shapes global political/social narratives.

So, the overwhelming balance of probability is that anyone who is permitted to become super-famous has deeply incriminating dirt on them, and that it's far worse than the grey-area "his word against hers" stuff that is being thrown at Russell Brand as part of the current media pantomime. It’s the kind of stuff that would put someone’s life in imminent and immediate danger from vigilante mobs, and for someone as visible and recognisable as Brand, they probably wouldn’t last the week."

So, just to be clear, for certain smear-mongering squawkers who constantly like to try and twist and misrepresent my articles, I am not saying that Russell Brand is some innocent, scapegoated paragon of perfection who isn't guilty of many and various serious sexual crimes.

He very probably is.

I'm just not convinced he's guilty of the particular crimes he's been very publicly accused of in a very high-profile, theatrical, trial-by-media-circus kind of way.

I'm therefore not convinced said trial isn't just part of the usual masonic theatre, performed by masonic puppets, staged to manipulate the public and manage perceptions.

In that vein, it is most interesting to note that Russell Brand conducted a '33' tour between 2021 and 2022, which he explained was named after his tattoos and favourite number.

Now, I know we conspiracists can, on occasion, go a bit over the top with evaluating the significance of numbers surrounding key events, and that coincidence is still a thing (probably), but when a top celebrity names their own tour after the most significant number in freemasonry, confirms the figure as their favourite number, and tattoos it on their body, we might just be onto something with thinking it's relevant...

Note also that Russell Brand has been found guilty of three sexual assaults but just one count of rape. The rape is said to have occurred in 2009, whilst Brand was performing at the Hammersmith Apollo.

How old was Brand in 2009?

He was born in June 1975, but his Apollo performances predated his birthday, occurring in February (and a rescheduled date in April), so at the time of this singular "rape" for which he has been convicted, he was, you guessed it...

33.

So, leading on from this, and my belief that the trial is masonic theatre, replete with the signature flourish of 33s: do I believe Brand will really go to prison?

No, I do not. I do not believe he will genuinely be incarcerated any more than I believed it about other high-profile dissenters who supposedly did time, such as Tommy Robinson and Lucy Connolly.

The first headlines regarding Russell Brand's 'imprisonment' would seem to confirm my thesis, as he has, with tedious predictability, 'been put in solitary confinement'. This is often said about the fake prison sentences, as a convenient excuse for why none of the other prisoners ever see their 'fellow inmate'.

So, overall, I believe this whole thing - the allegations, the trial, the imprisonment - to simply be part of an intelligence agency soap opera, devised to manipulate certain groups of people by giving them 'heroes'... and then tearing them down.

The psychological impact of these operations is two-fold: first, it's to scare those with alternative views out of speaking out themselves - "if I speak my mind, they'll dig up some dirt on me and throw me in prison, just like they did with Russell Brand!".

And second, it's to encourage the conflation of so-called 'conspiracy theories' and adjacent issues such as immigration concerns and Christian beliefs, with some of the world's worst people.

'Tommy Robinson', for instance, is a caricature thug, the exact embodiment of what the chattering classes imagine when they think of someone who is anti-immigration and right-wing: a foul-mouthed, violent drug addict, who specialises in hard racism, harassment and intimidation (Robinson was labelled a 'bullyboy' at his latest court hearing).

Then we have the poster girl for "free speech", Lucy Connolly - a vulgar, potty-mouthed alcoholic who wanted to burn immigrants to death.

The social scriptwriters intentionally make these characters as awful as possible so their targeted demographic will indict and undermine themselves by supporting and identifying with them.

And that's why one of the world's most famous "conspiracy theorists", Russell Brand, has now been revealed as an evil predatory rapist.

It's about relentlessly conflating right-wing beliefs, immigration concerns, and, most of all, 'conspiracy theories', with some of the world's worst people, so that those of us who possess similar such beliefs can de indicted and dismissed along with them.

I mean, look at the 'dissident heroes' the establishment media gives us. Not just Brand, Robinson and Connolly, but also:

Andrew Tate - a man currently facing extensive criminal charges including multiple counts of rape, arranging or facilitating human trafficking for sexual exploitation, actual bodily harm, and offences related to indecent images of a child and extreme pornography.

Laurence Fox - a self-admitted 'coke head' who has been charged with a sexual offence and is 'famed' for such things as branding political opponents 'unshagable'.

Dan Wootton - said to have tricked, manipulated, and bribed men (including colleagues and members of the public) into providing explicit sexual images and videos for money.

I could go on and on. Every time the establishment catapults a supposedly 'alternative' voice to international fame via its own press vehicles, it's always as part of a strategic operation to ultimately reveal that person as completely compromised in order to undermine the causes they claim to stand for.

When this happens, the individual's supporters are then faced with two choices, neither of them appealing. The first is to admit they were duped. This is not only embarrassing and uncomfortable, but it also calls into question their judgement as a whole: if you could be duped into thinking, for instance, Russell Brand was a good guy, couldn't you be duped by crazy conspiracy theories, too? Brand deceived you into believing he's a decent man when he's not: isn't it therefore likely he deceived with his loony views, as well?

The other choice is to double down on support for the compromised figure and insist they've been framed and their accusers are lying. Yet when there's an abundance of evidence to the contrary, including a conviction in court, taking this path severely undermines the ethics and integrity of the person offering the support, easily enabling their detractors to say.

"Look, if you're going to support a convicted rapist, I can't really trust your views on anything."

So, either way, they've got you. That's why it's best to never support these high-profile media heroes in the first place, because, by virtue of the fact they are high-profile, they're never authentic and will always be used in some kind of manipulation or masonic game.

As I like to say, "if you know their name, they're in the game".

'The game' is, and always has been, managing perceptions and manipulating the populace. It's the oldest game in the world, and so when it comes to publicly declaring whether you support or despise the latest media-manufactured hero/villain, remember that, with some games, the only winning move is not to play.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.