Lots to be disturbed about in Brand's behaviour here, as well as some useful reminders of how on the money he used to be. However, I have to take issue with some of Macleod's left vs right framing:

'[Brand to the RNC:] "A lot of good is being done here. I hope you are turning away from the values of a culture that does not value you. That sees you as a cog, as a consumer, as a recipient of the vaccines and bad food and bad agriculture, little more than a cog in the machine to serve elites.” With his populist right-wing rhetoric, Brand is firmly aboard the Trump train'

Quite waffly and slippery rhetoric from Brand, but isn't there a problem when Macleod views criticisms of consumerism, big pharma, toxic food and social alienation as 'right-wing' issues? Why does the implied 'left' have nothing to say on these topics, and is not apparently willing to give Brand a platform to hold forth on them?

'Facing mounting allegations of sexual assault and rape, Brand realized his existing leftist following would reject him, so he chose to move to the United States, embrace Trump and religion, and cultivate a reactionary fan base that would have little problem with his alleged sex crimes. If this is indeed the case, Brand would be far from the first to do so. Indeed, scholars and commentators have named this well-trodden path the right-wing “grift drift.” '

Interesting how it could only be 'reactionaries' who would hold to the principle of innocent until proven guilty and have some understanding that decades-old allegations might be weaponised to destroy the reputation of someone espousing views that the establishment finds problematic. How did that happen? Why would Macleod not use the opportunity to criticise those 'leftists' who are so quick to abandon a previous champion because the msm mounted a smear campaign against him?

'He also suggested that he was being persecuted for his political activism. “We are very fortunate, in a way, to live in a time when there’s so little trust in the British government,” he said, “We know the law has become a kind of weapon to be used against people, institutions and sometimes entire nations that will not accept and tolerate levels of corruption that are unprecedented.” Brand’s new conservative allies overwhelmingly came to his defense, claiming that a political witch-hunt against him was taking place. “I support Russell Brand. That man is not evil,” wrote Elon Musk. “Criticize the drug companies, question the war in Ukraine, and you can be pretty sure this is going to happen,” said Tucker Carlson. Alex Jones agreed, posting a video stating that. “Because he comes out against Big Pharma, he comes out against the globalists, he comes out against the New World Order, suddenly the allegations are happening to him.” Donald Trump Jr. compared him to imprisoned publisher Julian Assange.'

Is Macleod saying that Brand is wrong to claim he's being persecuted for his activism? Or that lawfare is real? Or that the British govt is corrupt & untrustworthy? Again, with his choice of responses from 'conservative allies' Macleod implies that the only possible defense of Brand is a right-wing defense. But, as we know well, there are plenty of reasons why genuine left-wingers would have problems with pharma, the Ukraine war, even elements of 'globalism' (which seems to have taken over from the critique of globalisation which was a solidly left-wing phenomenon, though the rhetoric around 'globalism' is admittedly more grounded in the right). Are we supposed to dismiss the comparison to the Assange case just because Trump Jr. made it?

'Another explanatory factor, for some, is the COVID-19 pandemic. Brand increasingly voiced his opposition to government measures and to vaccines, leading him down a rabbit hole of conspiratorial thinking. He was far from the only YouTube star to traverse this path, and like many others, for Brand, it was a lucrative one. His videos on COVID performed vastly better than his other content, netting 10-20 times the audience and unlocking advertising deals with products as diverse as coffee, VPNs and anti-radiation amulets. Analysts note a distinct change in subject, tone, and style of his videos from that point, towards a more conspiratorial, right-wing angle.'

Well, yes, that appears to be the precipitating factor for Brand's shift. However, it's easy to dismiss his content at the time as 'conspiratorial' without actually engaging with it. The 'analyst' Macleod refers to above merely notes that Brand got considerably more views for his covid-skeptic vids than for his other output, eventually leading to his 're-brand'. She points to one vid that 'raises doubts over the safety of COVID vaccines as the first example: (from 5:44)





Out of interest I looked it up, and he does indeed 'raise doubts', but these are couched in criticisms of corporate malfeasance and authoritarian government over-reach, with his main concern being mandates and control measures that were openly being spoken about as 'carrot and stick' approaches to coerce the population into adhering to the govt's policies:





At the end he comments:

'As I say, I have no view on whether or not you should take a vaccine or not take a vaccine, but certainly we're in a new environment where new ideas are being leveraged on the basis of public health and safety that certainly seem to have another component due to some of the partners that are involved, notably Pfizer. At a time where people are concerned as well as about their health about individual liberty and the impediment on individual liberty imposed by government organizations aided and abetted by corporations it's concerning. I hope that a viable vaccine emerges. I hope not for a return to normal, to be absolutely honest, because of course you know I live in relative comfort. I hope for a return to something far better. I hope for a a move towards a fairer, more just world where power and the decisions that affect people are moved much closer to the people affected by them, where there is much less cynicism and suspicion and much less cause for cynicism.'

Where's the lie? Why are these views no longer considered kosher within 'left wing' circles, at least according to Macleod? In this sense the article is a case of 'point one finger and three point back at you'.

There are plenty of problems with Brand's current views and over all political trajectory, but I still get the impression of a fundamentally good person doing his best to stick to his convictions within wider seismic political shifts. The 'left', ie: mainstream political liberals, have to take at least partial responsibility for the course he has taken - they made him persona non grata and basically chased him into the arms of the right. His case also reveals their own failings to stick to their own stated principles, with covid as a major touchstone, but other issues like Ukraine, russiagate, censorship, id politics, even climate change showing them to be craven servants & apologists for the establishment and its worst authoritarian tendencies.

cheers,
I