Not being much into pop culture, I didn't know who Russell Brand was when he started his anti-establishment chats. I was disappointed, but not surprised when these allegations surfaced.
We need to stop being surprised. When a study on the effects of porn on boys couldn't find a control group among 14 year olds, we know this is systemic.
There's no will to stop it, or it would be gone already. As usual, it's all about money.
A beautiful young girl, a friend of my daughter, ended up being a top-ranked porn star. I didn't follow her career, but somehow when I saw a FB post to the effect of "You are gone too soon" I knew what it was about.
She had killed herself because she was being forced to do something, professionally, that she did not want.
The sexual abuse had never stopped.
That had a deep effect on me, even though I didn't know her at that point.
How heartbreaking about your daughter's friend, Jaye. Yet all-too-common. And this sure sums it up: "When a study on the effects of porn on boys couldn't find a control group among 14 year olds, we know this is systemic." 😕
Oh come on! Russell Brand had women throwing themselves at him. He would have had to go out of his way to find a woman who didn't want to have sex with him. Why would he have bothered?
the same goes for lots of pop stars. girls throw themselves at them, they even have to fight them off. (former BF told me, he sometimes had to run they would suffocate him)
Of course, they are adult men and the girls are usually teens. They should know better. So should the girls. My parents thought me never to go with a man alone, not even one I knew. Of course I did not have many problems as I never was pretty.
What else could you have possibly meant by saying that girls should know better than to be alone with men? You were heavily implying that the responsibility is on the girls to anticipate predatory behavior from men. Instead of placing the blame where it belongs: on adult men who take advantage of the innocence of youth.
I am emphasizing, that everyone use their brain and their conscience. That girls behave well, and that men behave well. There have always been predators, but when I was a kid, we were told to be careful. Nowadays I see girls going to school, to the store, barely dressed. There is a saying, do not put the milk with the cat. I have a dim view of most men, to be honest. Sorry Mickey LOL. But our moms warned us and thought us to be wary of ALL men, even the 'decent' ones. So I plea completely different from what you presume. I consider EVERY man a potential predator. And I consider that EVERY girl and woman should think that way
"By now, you’ve all surely heard about Russell Brand and some of you have probably fallen neatly into one of a handful of clear categories of reflexive response."
That description could apply to you as well. To defend Russell Brand is to be a rape apologist is a reflexive response. He may well be guilty as you imply but he may well be innocent as well so calling anyone who might want to defend him a rape apologist most certainly slants the argument.
one of the easiest ways to get rid of an unwanted male opponent is to tell around he is an abuser. Recently Assange was told to be in the category, and Placido Domingo, and one of the supreme court judges. Some of the allegations were 40 years old. All parties were drunk. No one remembered exactly what happened. I remember pope Benedict's brother being accused - turns out he smacked some of the choir boys, 70 or so years ago, when you could still smack your kid, too, if it were to behave badly. I was smacked as a kid. Now that is child abuse. A friend who knows him well, told me the pope resigned to stop the rumours.
My reflexive response is assuming, yes assuming, that Brand is a victim of a contrived political, media, and social media witch hunt -- regardless of the (unproven, alleged) charges. Even if they were true. The GREATER dynamic here is politics, not rape. Not a fan of Kanye West particularly, but this seems like a similar attack.
Actually, my feelings were about the dynamics against Brand, not the dynamic of your post. And a dynamic in the case, by the UK government for instance, against Brand is a witch hunt -- in my opinion.
I'm watching people on this thread opt to ignore the crucial points I made and the even more crucial post I shared by Mary Harrington to instead defend Brand.
As for witch hunts, Brand has been unfairly de-platformed. Innumerable women were burnt alive because they may have owned a cat or practiced midwifery. Again, proving my point.
First of all let me state that we live in a very sick society and yes Male Dominance has been heavily promoted since the times of the Sumerians. Religions have been a balancing force against sinful materialism, and those institutions have fallen in the last 100 years.
I have been from Amish Country to Hollywood and back. I have been a boy, a man, and now a Hu-man. I can tell you from experience that all complexities of the Universe are represented in relationships and lack of relationships, between men and women, however there is no "one size fits all" rule regarding sex except maybe, the Natural Law:
Evil is when one person attempts to take away the free will of another, AND sin is anywhere that love is not.
We have laws and some of those laws are good and some are bad, but the worst travesty is to convict someone of breaking a law without a fair trial, based on their looks or even past implied behavior.
If you want to emotionally charge rape on a culture please start with Hollywood, the Music Industry, and it's mirror image in D.C. and their supporters in the fashion Industry. It's all infiltrated by black Magic IMHO. Men are not immune to the death-cult.
Thanks for reading my comment. I was not directly speaking to your piece but in general to a wider audience.
Just an observation on the "division of everything" psy-ops that are manufactured by our Watchers. It's a comment in response to the "Cancel Russel Brand immediately" Phenomenon that is also tied immediately to the "All men are rapists" branding. Knee-jerk mentality is pervading all human thought. If you discuss or call out any psy-op or zeitgeist Tulpa/Golem then you are also immediately branded a "blank" apologist.
Hegelian Dialectic exposure back-lash. Attack the truth. Preemptive blaming etc.
Two examples of this are the use of the term "Conspiracy Theorist" and calling someone a "pedophile." It shuts down the brain.
A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, commonly used to quell cognitive dissonance. Depending on context in which a phrase (or cliché) is used, it may actually be valid and not qualify as thought-terminating; it does qualify as such when its application intends to dismiss dissent or justify fallacious logic.[7]
Your headline includes a photo of Russell Brand in red and above is the statement about misogny and pornhub rape factory. Guilt by association? You have convicted Russell in the first paragraph. Maybe you didn't notice? The culture I was referring to is all males and I guess anyone successful in the comedy, rock n roll scene and maybe just successful media figures in general.
What is the real issue here? Are powerful wealthy men raping women at will? Are they raping men too? Has this been going on for centuries.? How often does this happen? What is the percentage? Don't we have laws against this? Why does it keep happening? What is the root of all this? What is the sexual imperitive?
That's how I do Nuanced Discussion. You asked if anyone suggested Charging Rape on a Culture and I answered. I respect your space and your writings but again I feel you convicted Russell Brand in the first paragraph and I have been reading Russell's writings for a few years and he has done a lot of good, helping folks in the recovery space. He seems to have a good heart and he seems to be trying to give back... just like you Z.
So, you now change your tune and admit you were aiming such charges at me? No where in this post do I "convict" Brand and no where in this post did I do anything to inspire or deserve the comments you've made so far. It's not about Brand - no matter how hard you and others try to make it so.
OK. It's not about Brand, however you have a photo of him at the top of your piece? You implied he was guilty of rape and misogyny with this comment:
"Of course, we don’t exactly know yet what Brand did or didn’t do but when I heard the allegations, this was my instant reaction:
"Why am I not surprised" (From Gif/meme)
"I may eventually say more about this. For now, I want to remind everyone (again) that what Brand is accused of doing is NOTHING NEW." "As I wrote recently: “Rape is almost exclusively a male-on-female crime spree (99.8 percent of those convicted of rape are male).”"
How am I misinterpreting this? Does that make me a rape apologist because my "hero" Russell Brand has been accused of rape and I ask that we not just assume he is guilty? Because he is a male. White? Successful? Really? I want to know. Do we even know what he has been accused of? By whom? Why did the accusers go to the media and not the police? Why do we trust the media when they are proven liars and manipulators? Operation Mockingbird.
None of this makes Rape OK. None of this makes Balenciaga ads ok. Or Calvin Klein or blah blah blah. There is so much inversion and hypocrisy in everything we see these days, that we must take everything with a pound of salt... even our own thoughts. The good news is that balance is being restored because the veil is being lifted... as evidenced by our convo, no?
BTW what group are you assigning me to when you say, "no matter how hard you and others try to make it so." That is not really fair is it. Are you calling me a Brand Apologist lol... Do you see the humor in that? What I mean is that, again, I am being "Branded" as a Brand rapist apologist because I spoke up about branding Brand. lol... Hey man. Let's actually answer each others questions if we dare. I asked a lot. Pick a couple.
That the alleged victims are anonymous is questionable. Even Rose McGowan has questioned that. That the whole of major media has essentially declared him guilty, that he has been de-monitized as if he were guilty, dropped by his publishers and agent, makes this very suspect. That crisis actors were used to portray his anonymous alleged victims is beyond the pale. But, that he was an addict, I cannot assume he is innocent. But on the whole, this suggests any dissident can be canceled/destroyed regardless if the allegations are true or false. I think too, his cancelling has something to do with the health situation in the UK - covid policy.
I'm astonished and disappointed that only ONE commenter (not counting Alicen's retorts) focused on the incredibly important point of this post. I can see that only 22 people even bothered to click on the Pornhub-related link. Who knows how many actually read it?
(I'm far less surprised that so many commenters opted to interpret my wording as an indictment of Brand.)
I read the article in the link and grieve for those who have had their lives torn apart because of the appalling debauchery that consumes the perpetrators. My hope is that honesty and truth will eventually prevail.
I did not click on the link because there is only so much wading through other people's depravity I can do in one day. Your explanation of it was enough for me.
As for people's response to this post, I think a lot of people have been hearing for many years that we should believe and support women, many of us have taken that to heart, but when one of the few prominent warriors against the globalist trend toward authoritarianism goes down because of anonymous allegations, it feels like that care and concern weaponized against us, and our instinct is to rally around the warrior, right or wrong.
I am suggesting to you to ponder those anonymous allegations. After all, this trans-global authoritarianism attacking Brand is cancelling the very idea of Woman
I think people are very sensitive about it, and all it took for a lot of people was that line in your lead about people being reflexive in their response, followed up by your Gif about your complete lack of surprise about the allegations, and then your follow-up about pron-hub. It felt a little like you insinuated he was guilty and we are wrong and being reflexive. We all know how much you care about women, how much work you do for women. Take a breath. We fight on.
Thank you, William, but you and a few other men said stuff like "It felt a little like you insinuated." With all due respect, it doesn't like I'm the one who needs to take a breath.
Well, now I am going to say it. It felt like lecturing. No one cares to be lectured at. I'm surprised by your defensiveness. Maybe it is the New Yorker in you. You are otherwise typically quite joyful. No hard feelings. It is hard to maintain equilibrium in this environment.
Wow... so, you weren't be truthful about your feelings until now? Very odd move on your part.
And now you're psychoanalyzing me. Let's check the scorecard: I'm lecturing, defensive, not joyful, behaving like a New Yorker, unable to maintain equilibrium, and need to take a breath. All because YOU imagined that I was criticizing someone you admire.
All you and the other men had to do was ask me to clarify what I meant. Instead, I'm being gaslighted (gaslit?).
No one likes to be lectured. Also, no one likes to be criticized for something they never said.
In the coda you state that It’s about justice for females in a world that regularly marginalizes them and now wants to pretend they don’t even exist. You also use the term rape apologist. These terms do imply where you stand on the issue. If Brand is innocent then no-one is marginalized.
You and others keep talking about where I stand on the issue but ALL of you are assuming and thus, twisting yourselves into a pretzel to defend someone who is not the point of the article. How do you feel about PornHub and the exploitation of minors? Can you get worked up about that?
With all due respect Mickey, I appreciate your passion on this topic. But I have to ask; if you hoped people would focus on the point you claim you wanted to make rather than the conspiracy to defame Russell Brand, why did you put a rather intimidating photo of him at the head of your post, say your instant reaction to the allegations against him was complete lack of surprise and that those accusations were "NOTHING NEW"? (Is anyone on earth who considers rape accusations something new!?) Honestly, after reading those first three paragraphs I fully expected the not new thing you weren't surprised about to be the fact that powerful interests often use accusations of sexual misconduct to defame their enemies. But instead you changed the subject!
No doubt you didn't think of it that way. I'm sure in your mind it was the same subject. But that was MY instant reaction. And it wasn't because I don't abhor rape and violence against women as much as you do. It was because when someone, especially a prominent dissident, is subjected to a coordinated smear campaign based on anonymous accusations of crimes with no evidence presented and no charges filed, the first thing I focus on is the injustice of the specific case, not the fact that the unsubstantiated crimes are proven to have been committed by others on a massive scale.
It's not right to associate Russell Brand with the crimes you address unless he is proven guilty of them. And it seems a bit disingenuous to claim your post is not about him while using him so prominently in the lede.
Not being much into pop culture, I didn't know who Russell Brand was when he started his anti-establishment chats. I was disappointed, but not surprised when these allegations surfaced.
We need to stop being surprised. When a study on the effects of porn on boys couldn't find a control group among 14 year olds, we know this is systemic.
There's no will to stop it, or it would be gone already. As usual, it's all about money.
A beautiful young girl, a friend of my daughter, ended up being a top-ranked porn star. I didn't follow her career, but somehow when I saw a FB post to the effect of "You are gone too soon" I knew what it was about.
She had killed herself because she was being forced to do something, professionally, that she did not want.
The sexual abuse had never stopped.
That had a deep effect on me, even though I didn't know her at that point.
And now they're trying to erase women altogether
How heartbreaking about your daughter's friend, Jaye. Yet all-too-common. And this sure sums it up: "When a study on the effects of porn on boys couldn't find a control group among 14 year olds, we know this is systemic." 😕
Oh come on! Russell Brand had women throwing themselves at him. He would have had to go out of his way to find a woman who didn't want to have sex with him. Why would he have bothered?
"Attractive men don't rape women" isn't the hot take you seem to think it is.
That is not what I said. Thanks for twisting my words. And goodbye to both of you.
the same goes for lots of pop stars. girls throw themselves at them, they even have to fight them off. (former BF told me, he sometimes had to run they would suffocate him)
Of course, they are adult men and the girls are usually teens. They should know better. So should the girls. My parents thought me never to go with a man alone, not even one I knew. Of course I did not have many problems as I never was pretty.
It's really sad that you seem content to live in a world where women and girls should assume men are predators.
who says that ? that is not what I meant AT all.
What else could you have possibly meant by saying that girls should know better than to be alone with men? You were heavily implying that the responsibility is on the girls to anticipate predatory behavior from men. Instead of placing the blame where it belongs: on adult men who take advantage of the innocence of youth.
I am emphasizing, that everyone use their brain and their conscience. That girls behave well, and that men behave well. There have always been predators, but when I was a kid, we were told to be careful. Nowadays I see girls going to school, to the store, barely dressed. There is a saying, do not put the milk with the cat. I have a dim view of most men, to be honest. Sorry Mickey LOL. But our moms warned us and thought us to be wary of ALL men, even the 'decent' ones. So I plea completely different from what you presume. I consider EVERY man a potential predator. And I consider that EVERY girl and woman should think that way
"By now, you’ve all surely heard about Russell Brand and some of you have probably fallen neatly into one of a handful of clear categories of reflexive response."
That description could apply to you as well. To defend Russell Brand is to be a rape apologist is a reflexive response. He may well be guilty as you imply but he may well be innocent as well so calling anyone who might want to defend him a rape apologist most certainly slants the argument.
one of the easiest ways to get rid of an unwanted male opponent is to tell around he is an abuser. Recently Assange was told to be in the category, and Placido Domingo, and one of the supreme court judges. Some of the allegations were 40 years old. All parties were drunk. No one remembered exactly what happened. I remember pope Benedict's brother being accused - turns out he smacked some of the choir boys, 70 or so years ago, when you could still smack your kid, too, if it were to behave badly. I was smacked as a kid. Now that is child abuse. A friend who knows him well, told me the pope resigned to stop the rumours.
My reflexive response is assuming, yes assuming, that Brand is a victim of a contrived political, media, and social media witch hunt -- regardless of the (unproven, alleged) charges. Even if they were true. The GREATER dynamic here is politics, not rape. Not a fan of Kanye West particularly, but this seems like a similar attack.
With all due respect, Howard, the greater dynamic of my post is rape. However, most commenters seemed to miss the coda.
Also, use of the term "witch hunt" literally proves the point I'm making.
Actually, my feelings were about the dynamics against Brand, not the dynamic of your post. And a dynamic in the case, by the UK government for instance, against Brand is a witch hunt -- in my opinion.
I'm watching people on this thread opt to ignore the crucial points I made and the even more crucial post I shared by Mary Harrington to instead defend Brand.
As for witch hunts, Brand has been unfairly de-platformed. Innumerable women were burnt alive because they may have owned a cat or practiced midwifery. Again, proving my point.
"He may well be guilty as you imply"
I never implied this.
First of all let me state that we live in a very sick society and yes Male Dominance has been heavily promoted since the times of the Sumerians. Religions have been a balancing force against sinful materialism, and those institutions have fallen in the last 100 years.
I have been from Amish Country to Hollywood and back. I have been a boy, a man, and now a Hu-man. I can tell you from experience that all complexities of the Universe are represented in relationships and lack of relationships, between men and women, however there is no "one size fits all" rule regarding sex except maybe, the Natural Law:
Evil is when one person attempts to take away the free will of another, AND sin is anywhere that love is not.
We have laws and some of those laws are good and some are bad, but the worst travesty is to convict someone of breaking a law without a fair trial, based on their looks or even past implied behavior.
If you want to emotionally charge rape on a culture please start with Hollywood, the Music Industry, and it's mirror image in D.C. and their supporters in the fashion Industry. It's all infiltrated by black Magic IMHO. Men are not immune to the death-cult.
Judge not, lest you be judged...
"If you want to emotionally charge rape on a culture"
Did anyone suggest this?
Thanks for reading my comment. I was not directly speaking to your piece but in general to a wider audience.
Just an observation on the "division of everything" psy-ops that are manufactured by our Watchers. It's a comment in response to the "Cancel Russel Brand immediately" Phenomenon that is also tied immediately to the "All men are rapists" branding. Knee-jerk mentality is pervading all human thought. If you discuss or call out any psy-op or zeitgeist Tulpa/Golem then you are also immediately branded a "blank" apologist.
Hegelian Dialectic exposure back-lash. Attack the truth. Preemptive blaming etc.
Two examples of this are the use of the term "Conspiracy Theorist" and calling someone a "pedophile." It shuts down the brain.
A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, commonly used to quell cognitive dissonance. Depending on context in which a phrase (or cliché) is used, it may actually be valid and not qualify as thought-terminating; it does qualify as such when its application intends to dismiss dissent or justify fallacious logic.[7]
Your headline includes a photo of Russell Brand in red and above is the statement about misogny and pornhub rape factory. Guilt by association? You have convicted Russell in the first paragraph. Maybe you didn't notice? The culture I was referring to is all males and I guess anyone successful in the comedy, rock n roll scene and maybe just successful media figures in general.
What is the real issue here? Are powerful wealthy men raping women at will? Are they raping men too? Has this been going on for centuries.? How often does this happen? What is the percentage? Don't we have laws against this? Why does it keep happening? What is the root of all this? What is the sexual imperitive?
Let's discuss that.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to explain all of this on a post that literally called for serious, nuanced discussion.
That's how I do Nuanced Discussion. You asked if anyone suggested Charging Rape on a Culture and I answered. I respect your space and your writings but again I feel you convicted Russell Brand in the first paragraph and I have been reading Russell's writings for a few years and he has done a lot of good, helping folks in the recovery space. He seems to have a good heart and he seems to be trying to give back... just like you Z.
So, you now change your tune and admit you were aiming such charges at me? No where in this post do I "convict" Brand and no where in this post did I do anything to inspire or deserve the comments you've made so far. It's not about Brand - no matter how hard you and others try to make it so.
OK. It's not about Brand, however you have a photo of him at the top of your piece? You implied he was guilty of rape and misogyny with this comment:
"Of course, we don’t exactly know yet what Brand did or didn’t do but when I heard the allegations, this was my instant reaction:
"Why am I not surprised" (From Gif/meme)
"I may eventually say more about this. For now, I want to remind everyone (again) that what Brand is accused of doing is NOTHING NEW." "As I wrote recently: “Rape is almost exclusively a male-on-female crime spree (99.8 percent of those convicted of rape are male).”"
How am I misinterpreting this? Does that make me a rape apologist because my "hero" Russell Brand has been accused of rape and I ask that we not just assume he is guilty? Because he is a male. White? Successful? Really? I want to know. Do we even know what he has been accused of? By whom? Why did the accusers go to the media and not the police? Why do we trust the media when they are proven liars and manipulators? Operation Mockingbird.
None of this makes Rape OK. None of this makes Balenciaga ads ok. Or Calvin Klein or blah blah blah. There is so much inversion and hypocrisy in everything we see these days, that we must take everything with a pound of salt... even our own thoughts. The good news is that balance is being restored because the veil is being lifted... as evidenced by our convo, no?
BTW what group are you assigning me to when you say, "no matter how hard you and others try to make it so." That is not really fair is it. Are you calling me a Brand Apologist lol... Do you see the humor in that? What I mean is that, again, I am being "Branded" as a Brand rapist apologist because I spoke up about branding Brand. lol... Hey man. Let's actually answer each others questions if we dare. I asked a lot. Pick a couple.
That the alleged victims are anonymous is questionable. Even Rose McGowan has questioned that. That the whole of major media has essentially declared him guilty, that he has been de-monitized as if he were guilty, dropped by his publishers and agent, makes this very suspect. That crisis actors were used to portray his anonymous alleged victims is beyond the pale. But, that he was an addict, I cannot assume he is innocent. But on the whole, this suggests any dissident can be canceled/destroyed regardless if the allegations are true or false. I think too, his cancelling has something to do with the health situation in the UK - covid policy.
https://williamhunterduncan.substack.com/p/guilty
I'm astonished and disappointed that only ONE commenter (not counting Alicen's retorts) focused on the incredibly important point of this post. I can see that only 22 people even bothered to click on the Pornhub-related link. Who knows how many actually read it?
(I'm far less surprised that so many commenters opted to interpret my wording as an indictment of Brand.)
I read the article in the link and grieve for those who have had their lives torn apart because of the appalling debauchery that consumes the perpetrators. My hope is that honesty and truth will eventually prevail.
Thank you, Claire. I join you in that hope. 🙏💕
I did not click on the link because there is only so much wading through other people's depravity I can do in one day. Your explanation of it was enough for me.
As for people's response to this post, I think a lot of people have been hearing for many years that we should believe and support women, many of us have taken that to heart, but when one of the few prominent warriors against the globalist trend toward authoritarianism goes down because of anonymous allegations, it feels like that care and concern weaponized against us, and our instinct is to rally around the warrior, right or wrong.
I am suggesting to you to ponder those anonymous allegations. After all, this trans-global authoritarianism attacking Brand is cancelling the very idea of Woman
I am pondering them. That's why - once again - I did not state anywhere in my post that Brand is guilty.
I think people are very sensitive about it, and all it took for a lot of people was that line in your lead about people being reflexive in their response, followed up by your Gif about your complete lack of surprise about the allegations, and then your follow-up about pron-hub. It felt a little like you insinuated he was guilty and we are wrong and being reflexive. We all know how much you care about women, how much work you do for women. Take a breath. We fight on.
Thank you, William, but you and a few other men said stuff like "It felt a little like you insinuated." With all due respect, it doesn't like I'm the one who needs to take a breath.
Well, now I am going to say it. It felt like lecturing. No one cares to be lectured at. I'm surprised by your defensiveness. Maybe it is the New Yorker in you. You are otherwise typically quite joyful. No hard feelings. It is hard to maintain equilibrium in this environment.
Wow... so, you weren't be truthful about your feelings until now? Very odd move on your part.
And now you're psychoanalyzing me. Let's check the scorecard: I'm lecturing, defensive, not joyful, behaving like a New Yorker, unable to maintain equilibrium, and need to take a breath. All because YOU imagined that I was criticizing someone you admire.
All you and the other men had to do was ask me to clarify what I meant. Instead, I'm being gaslighted (gaslit?).
No one likes to be lectured. Also, no one likes to be criticized for something they never said.
P.S. I'm joyful as I write this.
In the coda you state that It’s about justice for females in a world that regularly marginalizes them and now wants to pretend they don’t even exist. You also use the term rape apologist. These terms do imply where you stand on the issue. If Brand is innocent then no-one is marginalized.
You and others keep talking about where I stand on the issue but ALL of you are assuming and thus, twisting yourselves into a pretzel to defend someone who is not the point of the article. How do you feel about PornHub and the exploitation of minors? Can you get worked up about that?
With all due respect Mickey, I appreciate your passion on this topic. But I have to ask; if you hoped people would focus on the point you claim you wanted to make rather than the conspiracy to defame Russell Brand, why did you put a rather intimidating photo of him at the head of your post, say your instant reaction to the allegations against him was complete lack of surprise and that those accusations were "NOTHING NEW"? (Is anyone on earth who considers rape accusations something new!?) Honestly, after reading those first three paragraphs I fully expected the not new thing you weren't surprised about to be the fact that powerful interests often use accusations of sexual misconduct to defame their enemies. But instead you changed the subject!
No doubt you didn't think of it that way. I'm sure in your mind it was the same subject. But that was MY instant reaction. And it wasn't because I don't abhor rape and violence against women as much as you do. It was because when someone, especially a prominent dissident, is subjected to a coordinated smear campaign based on anonymous accusations of crimes with no evidence presented and no charges filed, the first thing I focus on is the injustice of the specific case, not the fact that the unsubstantiated crimes are proven to have been committed by others on a massive scale.
It's not right to associate Russell Brand with the crimes you address unless he is proven guilty of them. And it seems a bit disingenuous to claim your post is not about him while using him so prominently in the lede.