Russell Brand "I Slept With A 16 Year Old" | Megan Kelly Interview | Psychological Breakdown

本站添加: 2026-05-04

[00:00:00]Hi, welcome back to Triai Psychology.

[00:00:02]I'm so glad to be doing another video.

[00:00:05]Um, it's been a while and I'm going to get into this topic in this video and I'm going to be doing my reactions. I'm going to be pausing this video, showing you some of the clips and information uh along the way, giving you my opinion, my interpretation. Again, these are my opinions, my psychological interpretations, and they may not be true.

[00:00:29]Um I will just say that I do apologize about any sound issues, lighting issues, quality. I'm in India now uh for the next three months uh at the foothills of the Himalayans mountains. Uh I have another channel, Sarrai. Uh I'll put it put the link uh down below uh about that new channel. Um but yes, I'm going to get into it, but if the lights go out, I'll have to pause and sort it out because that's India for you. So, let's get into this video. I am going to be pausing it. So, if you want to watch the whole video uninterrupted, then you can go to uh Megan Kelly's podcast video directly.

[00:01:10]>> Then came all the allegations, the sexual alleged sexual assault and rape and it first came in this UK quote documentary. They use that term very loosely there and here.

[00:01:22]>> It's interesting that she says documentary positioning the documentary as maybe some false information, right? Because documentaries are meant to be, right, discovering something uh new, hidden. Uh and documentaries and journalism is meant to give a voice to people who don't have a platform like Russell Brand. Um highlighting something that's happened that's been hidden, discovering a truth. Now, we have to remember that we don't know the truth at the moment because he is up for trial. So, this interview, that information that's going to be presented here in this in this interview and even the information in the documentary, we don't know what is true. However, it's interesting that Megan Kelly starts this off by doing air quotes as if the documentary is not a, you know, discovering a truth.

[00:02:22]And you'll see in this video that they both position the fundamental principles of this issue of him and his allegations essentially as a conspiracy.

[00:02:35]And I'm going to get into my opinions um about that.

[00:02:39]>> And I'll tell you upfront, I was angry when I saw that because they did it in such a compelling way that especially the stuff about the 16-year-old that I was angry with you. I believed what they said or at least believed that there was smoke enough smoke there might be fire and >> Okay. And at this point, she doesn't know if it's true or not because the trial hasn't been completed. And this is what I'm a little bit curious about and frustrated with about Megan Kelly is that why has she done this interview now? If she is interested in the truth, if then why not wait? Why not wait for justice to prevail? You know, the truth and all the facts to be looked at in a fair way and you can say that about the documentary also. Of course, we can um however documentaries are there to protect victim victims. Journalists are there to give protection also, right? to um victims that want to speak the truth.

[00:03:46]So, however, I am curious about Megan Kelly's motive here. Why not wait for the truth to come out as opposed to having this interview now?

[00:03:59]>> Said to the audience at the time, you know, the conservative movement doesn't need somebody like that. like we love what he's saying about COVID, but if this is a guy who's sexually assaulting women and taking advantage of 16-year-olds, we need to move on without him and felt that anger for a couple of years. Okay, so she was she was angry, right? She's positioning this as a I was angry when I heard this. And it's almost leading up to this narrative that well, it's not true. It might not be true. I was angry when I heard it. Now, I'm open to the idea that maybe you didn't sleep with a 16-year-old. Obviously, he goes on to admit that he does. And Megan Kelly does not challenge him. At least in this clip. At least in this clip. But let's go on >> around you. Um because I just thought it was so reckless and it was so wrong and I knew that it might be false, but it seemed overwhelming the the way that they presented the evidence. So, she's criticizing the Channel 4 documentary for saying, "Well, this sleeping with a 16-year-old might not be true." And I was angry when I believed it, and now I'm actually open to the fact that it's might not be true. But we hear him admit that he did. And not once did Megan Kelly walk out.

[00:05:23]if she was absolutely disgusted, absolutely angry, why did she not just completely stop the interview right there and then she didn't challenge him. And this whole setup right here is interesting. And then the more I looked at it, the more I started to recognize I might not know the full story because since then I have seen what the British government has done, what my own government has done to certain figures that it doesn't like. And I have an enormous amount of open-mindedness to you are being railroaded and attacked by people for reasons having nothing to do with actual facts, but with your right-leaning stance on certain issues.

[00:06:08]your growing prominence as a figure in a bunch of discussions that >> so this to me my interpretation of this is revealing Megan Kelly's actual agenda she is seeing now Russell Brand as a right-leaning figure and attack is being put on him you know with these sort of and we Russell Brand's going to go into reasons why uh there are stories different different versions of events that have sort of in one sense underpinned this attack on certain figures. And Megan Kelly is actually setting up the platform for him to be able to launch that uh narrative from.

[00:06:50]She is not just simply asking him, she's laying the foundations here of, oh, okay, you're a right-leaning figure now, now that he's Christian, now he's speaking up against, you know, mainstream media or and the left ideology, etc., etc., which is in a line with her.

[00:07:09]And of course, he's now Christian, which is in a line with her. So, she's setting up this argument that he's going to actually propel forward here.

[00:07:20]>> They find very threatening. And honestly, I just reevaluated the whole thing and thought I need to be open-minded to having been wrong in my initial assessments and and I'm interested in a conversation about it.

[00:07:32]So because this potential narrative aligns with Megan Kelly's uh position, she has decided not to wait for the truth to come out, but has decided to now align herself with Russell Brand, giving him the platform to launch this further this idea that he is being attacked because he's a certain right-leaning figure and she's just completely set him up to launch this narrative from. That's what I see.

[00:08:02]Oh, thank you Me and Kelly for giving me the grace to address in particular your anger which is entirely legitimate and recognizable. And the plain fact of it is is that in Europe and in the United Kingdom where I'm from, the age of consent is 16 and I did sleep with a 16year-old.

[00:08:21]>> Okay. And this is the clip that has been clipped and gone viral.

[00:08:27]He starts this off by saying the age of consent is 16. So the first thing he says is he's stating a legal fact and this sets up his narrative which allows him to minimize and I'm going to unfortunately repeat this for a while because this is what he does. minimize the fact that this person was 16 um by essentially uh starting off this narrative of it's the age of consent, right? And I did sleep with a 16-year-old. So my questioning is, okay, so Megan Kelly was angry. Why is she not angry now? Why is she not shocked? And why is she not pausing this interview to say, "Oh, I thought I thought it was a lie." um or even hey challenging okay maybe it's the age of consent but why did you do that no questioning whatsoever at least in this clip and I have to hold my hands up and say I've not watched the entire um interview yet um but at but she has enough time she's got 15 minutes and 21 seconds to challenge him and she doesn't >> when I was 30 but when I was 30 I was a very different >> okay so I'm going to sorry I have to keep pausing He said, "But did you hear that?" "But when I was 30, I was very immature." Let me just go back.

[00:09:56]Legitimate and recognizable. And the plain fact of it is is that in Europe and in the United Kingdom where I'm from, the age of consent is 16. And I did sleep with a 16-year-old when I was 30. But when I was 30, I was a very different person.

[00:10:13]>> Right? So he uses the word but. I did sleep with a 16-year-old but when I was 30 but when I was 30 I was immature. So what the word but does is that it minimizes everything that you just said and refocuses shifts the focus on everything you say after the butt.

[00:10:32]Right? It's a word that is of opposition. So now he's now going to oppose this statement that he said which is I slept with a 16-year-old. And this is the start of him minimizing that fact and amplifying other facts or I should say another narrative.

[00:10:55]>> I was a lot younger and I was an immature 30-year-old. I mean consensual sex actually with a variety of people when there is a strong power differential as there is when you're a famous man that has the ability to attract women that I had at that time I think involves exploitation.

[00:11:15]>> You heard him say when I slept with lots of people. So right from that point he begins to only use the word people and he starts to say I slept with lots of people. This is what happens when you sleep with lots of people. And again he's shifting she's shifting the picture from sleeping with a 16-year-old to sleeping with lots of people and lots of women.

[00:11:48]So my opinion is is that this is a psychological manipulation. He's manipulating the picture. He's manipulating the reality, the truth, the facts, and presenting verbally uh a different picture, which is I slept with lots of people.

[00:12:08]There's no mention from that point, that first sentence, I slept with a 16-year-old. There's no mention of this 16year-old what it may have been like to be 16 having an interactions having sex with a 30-year-old celebrity and what that was like. He does acknowledge the fame and the exploitiveness of the power of fame. But I've got some comments on that.

[00:12:34]>> It is exploitative. I recognized that my sexual conduct in the past was selfish and uh I didn't I did not apply enough consideration barely any I suppose really to how that sex was affecting other people.

[00:12:53]The only matter that I would contest while acknowledging firstly your right to be angry with as a woman who given what I know about you and the industry you've worked in I'm sure that you have personal reasons for feeling agrieved towards powerful men because in spite of occasionally men coming to the forefront of the culture whether it's the most hideous gargoyle villains as rendered and portrayed or the more sort of innocuous and party boy style exploiters of women a category that I suppose I must fall into. It's a It's plainly something that exists within our industry and one might say culture at large. While I was transgressing lines of being a person that was sleeping with people because I had availability to not only by the way waitresses and strippers and fans and people but like you know powerful women as well like powerful professional women that had gravitas and status and power.

[00:13:47]I was only really thinking of myself and obviously this is I have to be careful of contempt of court because >> okay I'm just going to pause it here first because again do you see how he's magnifying and emphasizing this is this is a psychological um cognitive behavior behavioral uh term of magnification and minimization. And what he's done is he's minimizing the 16year-old, right?

[00:14:13]Doesn't talk about that again. Magnifies are sleeping with lots of people, women, powerful women, right? See how he's magnifying the opposite of a 16-year-old girl. This is manipulation. This is we are being psychologically manipulated in this narrative. In my opinion, in my opinion. Okay. And he also talks about how he is now identifying himself with other powerful men, right? Other powerful men in the industry. And he's aligning himself with celebrity fame culture. And he he says something very important I'm going to comment on in a moment to highlight this point more clearly. But see how he's positioning himself with others. This is a tactic to reduce the personal accountability of his own behaviors. Now, I know he admits it here and there. I was selfish and he admits it at the very end as well. Um, you know, that it was sort of immoral.

[00:15:18]That's not what we're talking about here. And he, like I said, he's aligning himself with other famous individuals, which again, like I said, reduces the accountability personally, and he paints the the topic of conversation as a as a more kind of generalized problem, right?

[00:15:39]So, he's generalizing this problem to others, other situations as well. That's a law in my country where I can't say anything publicly that um might in any way influence a potential jury. But obviously as soon as I've said I'm not guilty, what I'm in effect saying is I had consensual sex with lots of lots of women and you can argue that that's not appropriate. But the age of consent is an important thing. The ability to consent is an important thing. Like i.e. drunk people can't consent. Mentally ill people can't consent. Children can't >> Okay, I'm going to pause it here. He talks so quickly and he says a lot of things in a short space of time. So I'm going to have to interject him.

[00:16:22]He said, "I have to be careful to not be in contempt of court to sway the the the narrative or the picture." And then he goes on and he says, "But and he goes on to make legal arguments."

[00:16:38]I mean he's pushing the point the age of consent is 16 uh blah blah blah blah blah. So on one hand he says you know I have to be careful not to sway the narrative but I'm going to make some points to sway the narrative is essentially what's going on here. What Russell Brand does very very very well and and he's this is just the way he communicates is he does information flooding. He floods you with information, lots of big words. Uh he's got a very wide vocabulary and he just bombards. It's like a kind of bombardment on the psyche. And I would actually argue that Megan Kelly may have not challenged him because she's like waiting for the point to finish. You know, there's a lot of information flooding flooding at you. And I and and and I'll just add to this that in my opinion whether it's unconscious or conscious, this is a way to gain power and gain control.

[00:17:43]Again, it might be totally unconscious, but he's a very charismatic person. I'm not going to say whether he's narcissistic or not. However, um the point still remains that he he kind of gains power by flooding with lots of information, lots of technical details as well.

[00:18:04]>> Consent, but consent is what's important and what fame gave me. And what >> and I'm just going to point out here that it's arguable whether the 16year-old or any of these women gave consent. He's arguing that they did in these interviews. He's arguing that and that's what he's claimed. Um, and I'm going to I'm going to get into this in a moment further.

[00:18:31]>> Addictionfueled was opportunity for endless consent which led me to be a hedonist and a fool and an exploer of women.

[00:18:41]>> So that was his personal acknowledgement.

[00:18:44]It the fame allowed me the opportunity to become hedonistic and selfish. Okay, fine. He's admitting that he was selfish and he was reckless sexually.

[00:18:59]I'll go on. And that is wrong and that is something that needs to be redeemed and addressed and atoned for. What I'm obviously not only querying but violently or aggressively or assertively opposing is the idea that this is a judicial criminal matter where consent was overridden.

[00:19:20]>> Actually what happened was is consent was directed. That's what being famous and being if I may say forgive me charismatic affords you.

[00:19:30]Okay, this herein lies a very crucial point where he is stating fame allowed and put me in a position of where consent was directed to me.

[00:19:45]Basically, if I was to sort of interpret those words and it is my interpretation, you know, women came at me essentially.

[00:19:54]Women came at me because I'm famous and I'm a celebrity.

[00:19:58]I'm going to show you a clip here of Russell Brand overstepping the boundaries with women. And this is a direct opposite argument and actual actually evidence.

[00:20:14]His claim here that consent just came to me because I was famous.

[00:20:19]>> No, I want to know.

[00:20:19]>> Do you want me to come over there to you?

[00:20:24]>> Oh my god.

[00:20:26]>> No.

[00:20:28]box.

[00:20:31]Come on.

[00:20:32]>> Oh my god. Oh wow. Okay.

[00:20:35]>> Everything's okay, isn't it?

[00:20:37]>> Yes. You're very >> I know. Cuz you're quite handsome and you're very good looking and you're engaged and I'm aware of that. And she's a beautiful >> She's lovely, isn't she? This is all right, though. I'm allowed to sit on people's lap.

[00:20:48]>> Can I put my hands there?

[00:20:49]>> Yeah, that's allowed as well. Come in there. There. It's all be all right. Just I'm just releasing the scores. There you go.

[00:20:59]>> Box is pregnant now.

[00:21:00]>> Oh, wow. Oh, good. That's very That's lovely. That was so lovely. I just turned my cheek, too. That was very professional of me.

[00:21:08]>> So, the next clip is worse. But he's claiming that because I'm famous, consent just came to me. Women threw themselves at me. Okay, she's flattered.

[00:21:17]She's flirting. She's, you know, starruck by him. However, he got up off the seat, walked over her to her, straddled her, kissed her, got completely in her physical space. And that is not what fame awards people.

[00:21:35]Fame does not award people that behavior. And that is the behavior that he is totally ignoring and minimizing.

[00:21:45]And now, if this was on camera, can you imagine what could have been happening off camera? I'm going to play the uh clip again clip further because the next clip is well just worse. Liz, >> that's your fault cuz you took your eye off the road cuz things was getting a bit groovey out there. All right, >> thank you.

[00:22:04]>> Well, it's been really a success. See that?

[00:22:10]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:22:12]>> How can I do your bra just like this?

[00:22:16]>> I love you.

[00:22:18]So is that somebody who's just a passive recipient of consent being thrown at him, a passive recipient of idol worship, which he goes on to say, which I'll get on to in a moment, or is that somebody crossing the boundaries, crossing physical lines of personal space, sexualizing women, uh groping women, literally kissing them on on the lips, on the cheek, straddling them, And I'm now going to go to this is a BBC article of actually what the victims have claimed has happened.

[00:22:58]So one says that he indeently assaulted a woman in the Westminster area by grabbing her arm and dragging her towards the male toilets.

[00:23:14]That allegation is not a passive recipient of fame. The consequences of being famous. That's not what's being alleged by the alleged victim.

[00:23:31]Here's another one. Alleges he sexually assaulted a woman by kissing and groping her.

[00:23:39]I mean, we can see that he he did that here. There he is kissing and groping a lady.

[00:23:49]Now, you could say, well, why didn't the women throw them throw him away? Throw him off throw him off her.

[00:23:58]Um, that's arguable.

[00:24:02]However, what what Russell Brand does is he's very charming. He's verbally coercive in my opinion. He bombards. He floods with information. He's flirtatious.

[00:24:15]And that entering into the personal space, especially this second clip, I wouldn't be surprised if that woman was absolutely stunned in the moment and frozen. You don't know whether she as a child experienced abuse and whether at the presence that very very close proximity of a of a another individual entering her personal space suddenly I'm going to replay this because it was absolutely sudden and unexpected. She was stunned and she was startled and she didn't know what to do or what to say.

[00:24:51]I'm gonna play it again and let's see that >> that's your fault because you took your eye off the road because things was getting a bit out there. All right, >> thank you.

[00:25:00]>> Hands up.

[00:25:01]>> It's been really a 16.

[00:25:06]>> All right, thank how can I do your bra? Just like this.

[00:25:11]>> She's shocked. That surprise in her face. That is the shocked uh face facial expression. And when you're shocked and when you're startled, what happens psychologically and physiologically is the uh peripheral uh areas of your brain actually shut down. They don't they don't work because what's happening is the amygdala and the the um hypothalamus is uh activated and that is the fightlight uh or freeze response. Right? And this is the key uh part of any trauma or any sort of sudden event that happens, you have you're in the startle response. And so it often is that when uh victims of abuse are in that uh state, they cannot verbalize what they want, what they need because they cannot think. Literally the brain is not working in that way.

[00:26:09]So, we can see that the allegations, right, are not that, oh, he's famous and I just threw myself on him as what he starts to paint here in this interview, but it's actually that he was the aggressor.

[00:26:25]We can see that he's got he has behavior evidenced here on camera of him doing that.

[00:26:32]So, I'm going to go back and allow him to continue his sentence here.

[00:26:39]And again, I'm going to pause it.

[00:26:40]>> Is the ability to direct consent. That doesn't mean it's right. It's actually not right. It's wrong. It's a sin. It's an expression of selfishness and false idolatry.

[00:26:49]>> Let me just replay this because I'm going to break down my interpretation of what he's saying.

[00:26:55]>> Consent was directed. That's what being famous and being, if I may say, forgive me, charismatic affords you is the ability to direct consent. That doesn't mean it's right. It's actually not right. It's wrong. It's a sin. It's an expression of selfishness and false idolatry. I provided a lot of mater.

[00:27:13]>> So, it's a it's a an example of false idolatry. Right? So he's he's stating that because he's charismatic, because he's famous, he directs the consent to him, just because of his kind of magnetism.

[00:27:28]He's just attracting people and there's a false idolatry in that. I would call this a little bit of spiritual bypassing. He's using Christian terms of it's a sin. Right now, I'm not quite clear what he's referring as a sin. Is it a sin that he's charismatic and he's sort of attracting or is he saying it's a sin that other people are attracted to him because of their false ideology idolatry onto him that that's a sin.

[00:28:00]Either way, this is spiritually bypassing. What that means is is you take something very kind of real and evidential and you use spiritual terminology to understand it and you bypass the actual problem, right? Right.

[00:28:16]And the actual problem here is that well he was taking advantage of his position and he was crossing all boundaries appropriate boundaries and he's also if I'm understanding him correctly he's also blaming the victim. He's blaming women that directed their consent to him. This is victim blaming. But again, he's minimizing and ignoring and pushing aside his behavior, which was crossing boundaries, uh, groping women. And what does that mean when you're with a young impressionable 16-year-old as a 30-year-old man who's probably very, very sexually experienced compared to a young 16-year-old who probably isn't.

[00:29:08]ial through my foolishness and my selfishness around women. That meant that when I became not a person that was celebrated by the culture as a representative of individualism, hedonism, you're the most important thing in the world. There's no essentially acting like if there is a god, you're it. That's what the culture wants you to believe. It doesn't want you to have a high higher authority to which you submit that none of us have control over. But we don't.

[00:29:31]>> Again, he's blaming the culture of fame.

[00:29:34]He's blaming the culture of fame and celebrity. Of course, what he's saying is not wrong. He's he's not wrong in saying that, you know, fame and celebrity culture encourages, you know, the worship of u celebrities.

[00:29:48]However, this isn't the point. This isn't the point. The point is is that he chose to sleep with a 16-year-old.

[00:29:56]That's the point. And he's constantly ignoring it and shifting the narrative.

[00:30:02]Actually, we're not the final say on what's right and wrong. God is the final say. Now, I have a trial. So, in that trial, I'll have the opportunity, as will people that feel wronged against, to achieve justice. And I have no problem in praying for absolute justice and the best possible outcome for everyone involved. And indeed, that is my prayer, Megan, because how >> That's interesting. Then why do this interview? Why do this interview?

[00:30:28]Shifting this narrative and portraying this whole ordeal as an attack against a potential leader, which is what he goes on to talk about from the majority of this interview.

[00:30:42]>> I look at this or carve this up. There are people that feel hurt enough to participate in this venture. Now, as of the second, >> participate in this venture. Now, what if there are real victims? What if he did do this? Again, we don't know the truth. I'm not saying that he did. I'm not saying that he didn't, but we don't know the truth. We haven't allowed, he hasn't allowed, right? The and and you know, you could say also the documentary didn't allow the truth to come out in the court system first.

[00:31:10]However, the only thing is here is that 16year-old who is now an adult and the other victims, alleged victims, they don't have the same platform as Russell Brand. This is the point. At the beginning, he talked about power.

[00:31:25]There's an abuse of power. You know, because I'm famous, there's an abuse of power. But in this very interview and all the other interviews he's done, he is literally using that power in a way that those alleged victims just do not have. They do not have. And if they were to step out and say something, not only could they be at risk because he has a massive fan base, but also they don't, you know, victims of trauma find it very very difficult, very difficult to speak about what happened.

[00:31:59]You know, they they find it very difficult to speak about what happened.

[00:32:02]It's retraumatizing to to go over the facts of events, which is what they are going to have to do in court. They're going to have to grillingly, traumatizingly go through the facts of what happened. And they don't have the platform uh that Russell Brand does. He does. They don't have the connection of Megan Kelly who has 4 million subscribers.

[00:32:29]So this whole this whole campaign this marketing campaign I will call it in my opinion is an abuse of his power.

[00:32:43]>> Part of what you're saying why did it happen when it happened because a documentary was made that framed my very explicit public behavior in a particular way. I believe that there is a strong connection between when it happened and what I was doing publicly. I've moved from being >> okay. So now he's going to start this whole narrative about leaders, conspiracies, and people being taken down uh that could be a threat essentially to the whole system that we live in today as a society. Um, so he's saying that the documentary was an attack from with an agenda, conspiratorial agenda against him, which in my opinion, if he did sexually assault those women, this narrative is extremely grandiose.

[00:33:35]It's extremely grandiose.

[00:33:37]It's I mean he's positioning himself in this whole narrative as connected and close to leaders other leaders. So he's a threat. It's grandiose to think that I am so big that I am therefore a threat.

[00:33:52]So people are making up these allegations. Again, no reference to his actual conduct like in this video.

[00:34:03]Absolutely abysmal. like disgusting, inappropriate, >> um uh acting in movies and being on TV and writing books and essentially advocating for the kind of cultural values that most people within the institutions of power and entertainment power endorse and espouse to being quite critical of them, openly critical of the pharmaceutical industry, the British government, bureaucratic agencies that have unelected power that we often are taxed for and are funding.

[00:34:32]>> Now, I'm going to pause it here. I will just play through the entire video because I don't really have much to say about what he's about to say. But what I'm going to say that what he is about to say and get into is not necessarily untrue. Not necessarily untrue at all.

[00:34:50]But what he's doing is he's using all of this as the reason to why he's been attacked.

[00:34:58]And like I said, he's magnifying this narrative and minimizing his behavior and the impact of a 16-year-old girl when he was a 30year-old man acting completely inappropriately.

[00:35:11]If we wanted just to be honest about these things, he could have just come on here and said, "Yeah, my behavior was totally inappropriate and it was wrong and um but but it wasn't illegal because the age of consent is 16." Um the end. No, but what he does is he goes on this long tirade about him being a threat, right, to global institutions.

[00:35:41]And my suspicion here or my my interpretation here is that this is his agenda. And I'm going to kind of give an opposing argument here is that what if what if because he was going to run for mayor of London that these victims decided to come forward because they didn't want a perpetrator to become a leader in England. What if that's the narrative?

[00:36:12]What's what if what if that's the truth?

[00:36:14]But nobody's bringing that up. Nobody Megan Kelly isn't bringing that up.

[00:36:18]Well, what if you did do this, Russell?

[00:36:20]What if you did um sexually assault these women? Should a sexual predator be the mayor of London and maybe it's a it's a good thing and it's the right and moral thing for victims to come forward if that's what happened to them. Let's wait and see in the trial. But no, it's just allowing him to continue with this narrative that again suits this presenter's position as well. and and and in co I really started to find a voice for something I'd long felt that real power is inaccessible to ordinary people. I'd gone into a lot of controversy and trouble in around 2015 when I was thinking of running for mayor of London when I'd said there's no point voting for anybody because whoever you vote for you're going to get the same institutions and boy does that seem appposite and perspeacious now when we have a very powerful and idiosyncratic and seemingly self-empowered individual as the leader of your country most powerful nation in the world who many people believe is currently fulfilling an agenda that is not endorsed by the American public and and many people also believe it's not even in the best interests of the United States of America. So if someone as powerful and magnetic and idiosyncratic as Donald Trump can be maneuvered by invisible institutions of deep state international power that are not beholden to the populations of the nations that they are elected to represent, then all of us are participating to some degree or another in sets of powers and interests that do not like to be challenged and are difficult to challenge. Whatever one thinks about this current conflict, one thing I pretty strongly believe is if Camala Harris had been elected, you would still have this war with Iran in more or less the same way. And that's what's kind of disheartening about it is that power is going to do what it's going to do. In fact, when you >> power is going to do what it's going to do like him in this interview like him in this interview turning this whole narrative about him being a figure that is threatening to mainstream societal institutions or whatever is going on hidden that he talks about or proposes.

[00:38:32]So power is going to do what power is going to do. Yes. Yes, it is. And if he was a a predator and a um sexual abuser, then victims of abuse also need those with power to stand up for them.

[00:38:52]To stand up for them.

[00:38:54]>> Reflect even for a minute. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

[00:38:56]Otherwise, true global power would have to pivot every four years to accommodate significant variation depending on what on which political party got elected.

[00:39:06]the likes of Kissinger players on the world stage have always known you need 20 year 30 year 50y year 100redyear American projects and it's very interesting to know that the the project of the next American century included we're going to have wars with Iran we're going to have wars with Lebanon uh Iraq North Korea Afghanistan you can tick all those nations off and most people that have been paying attention already conducted that exercise now what the pandemic provided I suppose was an interesting window where for a moment there was an attempt to assert global control, not even national control. You remember we all do.

[00:39:39]>> So what I have to comment here is that immediately I no longer care about what he has to say because there has been this obiscation of the real important thing here which is somebody who was 16 in a vulnerable position with a 30-year-old man who was you know had chaotic behavior.

[00:40:03]Um, that's my sort of reaction here.

[00:40:08]And I'm holding on to that because this is sort of what I do as a psychotherapist. When I have a client, I hold on to something that they may have said or not said and observe. And what I'm doing here is I'm observing Russell Brand now go on to the longest part of this interview to talk about essentially a conspiracy against him.

[00:40:31]And I can see through it. I can see through it.

[00:40:35]And the reason why I can see through it is because, in my opinion, this is a deflection. It's a deflection in order to position him as some sort of important threat, a leader of some sort that was attacked falsely.

[00:40:54]And again, we don't know the truth yet.

[00:40:56]We hadn't allowed this to, you know, play out in the courts. and allow the, you know, kind of material ultimate justice system to be the main kind of final speaker on this matter.

[00:41:12]I'll let him continue.

[00:41:13]>> The beginning of the pandemic, they said, "Well, in China, of course, with their social credit scores and their centralized communist control, they can immediately submit an entire population, but you try that in the United Kingdom or Italy or Lord above forbid the United States of America." Well, what happened?

[00:41:28]They were more or less able to assert that level of control in what is superficially a very different political system explicitly democracy. And yet when it was the lockdowns, when it was you can't worship, when it was take these vaccinations, people generally speaking obeyed. The only problem was that with a decentralized media that's not controlled by the same resources and forces as customary media, there were voices like Joe Rogan most obviously and evidently who um I suppose framed and platformed significant and more importantly authoritative voices around the vaccine. I'm talking about McCullik, Robert Malone, Jay Bacharia, people who blessedly now won positive of the current administration are in government under the HHS of Secretary Robert Kennedy. Now, outspoken critics of the COVID pandemic, people that said, "How can they possibly have researched these vaccines? How can we know what the side effects are? Did they even test for transmission?" The once these thread >> flooding of information, a lot of technical, a lot of detail, flooding, flooding, um start getting pulled. We know that co that companies like Madna and FISA spend a good deal of money observing and doing their best to deamplify what they called antiax voices. In my country, for example, Megan, there's a group called the 77th Brigade. They're a scops organization run by a man called Mark Lancaster who's married to Dame Caroline Dinage who she's the one who tried to stay for you on the very >> all interesting information.

[00:42:58]True, not true. That's up to public opinion, but I see through it. Russell, why did you sleep with a 16-year-old? What was the power dynamic going on? Um, what was that situation? Okay, he might not be able to talk about this because he's on trial. But that's the point that underpins all of this. This is what pulls the rug from under his feet. And I I I just don't understand why Megan Kelly is not challenging him challenging him on that. very first day. On the very first day that these um unsettling and disturbing allegations were made, Caroline Dinage, who's works for the government, was ready to say X should demonetize Russell Brand, Rumble should demonetize him, YouTube, and the YouTube of course did.

[00:43:43]>> Now, when did Caroline Dinage even learn the nomure of CPMs and programmatic ads?

[00:43:52]Well, perhaps it's possible to imagine in a Nancy Pelosi and Paul Pelosi type way. Perhaps some information crossed the marital bed because her husband Mark Lancaster runs the 77th Brigade. They are and you can look at this now online to ensure that what I'm telling you is at least somewhat accurate. The 77th Brigade are a scop organization that operate in partnership with the with with the military in countries like Syria and Afghanistan when those nations are occupied and internal disscent has to be quashed and controlled. An online organization such as we saw in the Arab Spring has to be managed and manipulated. That includes deamplifying, online messaging, intercepting, controlling, shutting down, and all sorts of things that we don't understand. We simply don't know the technology. Normally, SCOPs of that nature are not able to be practiced domestically. It's illegal. But in the same way that they found a way around surveilling citizens using the five eyes, and I understand from Netanyahu, there is now a sixth eye in Israel. The five eyes get around that problem. The five eyes being the angophonic nations, Canada.

[00:44:53]>> There's a lot of information, but I'm just going to simplify it by saying what he is essentially saying is that because he was speaking out against the vaccination, etc., etc., he was demonetized. And this is a part of a regime to squash certain voices in society. Now, I'm not saying that that doesn't happen. I'm not saying that that didn't happen to him, but the fact is is that it doesn't prove that he didn't sexually assault those women. Doesn't prove that. And what Russell Brand is now going to have to do, he's going to have to prove with evidence that this was happening to him, that the allegations of sexual assault against him was a a weapon used by certain individuals to squash his voice, to attack his leadership.

[00:45:53]He's going to have to find evidence for that. At the moment, we don't know what is true, but he is going to have to find evidence for that. And he's going to have to have some evidence or a narrative that proves that he did not assault those women.

[00:46:11]This at the moment, this is these are his ideas. This these are his thoughts.

[00:46:16]And even if they are true, it doesn't disprove him being a sexual predator.

[00:46:24]>> United States, America, New Zealand, Australia, the UK by spying on one another's citizenry and sharing information. That way the US doesn't break any of its internal laws about spying on it citizens and neither does the UK. And yet the information is acquired, the information to control people. As Edward Snowden revealed at the time, they have all the information they need on you. So if in one in one day in the future you become an enemy of the state they will find something with which to criminalize you if that should be required.

[00:46:52]>> So is he saying that there is information real true information that he was a perpetrator of of sexual abuse?

[00:47:02]Was that a disclosure? We don't know.

[00:47:06]But essentially what he's saying is that this documentary was done because of his sexually exploitative exploitative behavior. It's been used as a way to shut down an enemy of the state. It's very grandiose.

[00:47:22]Right? I'm not saying it's not true, but it also doesn't disprove that he was a sexual president.

[00:47:30]>> God forbid that that is ever required in anyone's life. But if god forbid that that is ever required in anyone's life but if it happens they've got the information. So 77th brigade were allowed to do that in the UK because co was treated as some of you will remember and it was extremely advanced in your nation as a kind of military exercise a kind of war. Now, I only know this because I was reading the good work of other journalists and reporters and independent media contributors at the time. And that meant that most of us, a significant number of us, had a very different picture of COVID in real time than the one we were being offered by the very institutions that you and I work for, Megan, where on late night TV, you know, the likes of Steven Cobear were dressing up as a syringe and dancing around where I remember another late night show by my fellow Brit and um, you know, a person that I have good affection for, James Cordon, dancing in the street celebrating Anthony Fouchy.

[00:48:24]Who now would celebrate Anthony Fouchy in the same manner knowing his involvement with the HIV crisis?

[00:48:28]>> Trump >> still defending him.

[00:48:32]>> So I suppose, you know, that was a rather a long answer, but it was a complex question and I I want to thank you for having me on and giving the opportunity to address the thing that's troubled me most about this is I have obviously through my conduct hurt people. It's not criminal conduct. It's not right. In fact, to use the phrase that they use to censor people on X these days, uh, awful but lawful, I think is what I say. It's not right to sleep around with lots of people.

[00:48:59]>> See again, the deflection from the 16year-old to people >> say that not only as a father of a son.

[00:49:09]I don't want my children growing up thinking the apex of your human power is having a lot of sex with people. Sex is a very powerful thing. It's a gift and I misused it and I understand now that there are consequences to that.

[00:49:25]>> So, we could see that he somewhat took accountability somewhat at the end to say it was wrong, but he's referring to his, you know, sexual freedom. But what we can see here in his behavior that's on camera and we can see what's being uh alleged is that he was aggressive and uh a predator and he doesn't at all talk about the 16-year-old the power differentiation there. And what he does instead is that he uses still whilst criticizing the power that famous people has, he's wielding that power now by painting this narrative that he is a figure that is threatening.

[00:50:12]And again, we don't know what's true because he's not gone to trial yet. So, this was a very lengthy video. Those are my thoughts. Let me know in the comments what you think and I'll see you in the next video. Bye.