The fake Russell Brand media psyop
Fri 2:43 pm +00:00, 13 Nov 2026
Source: https://mileswmathis.com/brand4.pdf
by Miles Mathis
November 11, 2026
Some don’t understand why I think the Brand case was faked, as I claimed near the end of my paper of
November 3. Many women will no doubt chime in again (as they did after my Amish rape paper or
my paper on the Glen Ridge rape) to say I am condoning rape, though that has nothing to do with this.
What I don’t condone is fakes, lies, or Phoenician frauds.
I have already published several papers on Brand, as you see from the URL tag this is number 4, the
most recent being from April 2025, when these trials started. I said the same thing there, though I
didn’t have all the specific examples from the trials that I now have, which I got from mainstream
reports. I also did his genealogy in 2023, telling you exactly why I didn’t trust him. I first outed him
as a probable agent back in 2014 in a paper about Graham Hancock. And then we have the tattoos that
give him away, including the 33 on his left wrist, always displayed prominently. Also the all-seeing
eye, of course, and other required Phoenician imagery. Now that he has allegedly converted to
Christianity (from what?) he says the 33 is about Jesus, but he had it long before the fake conversion.
So if you wondered why I was not prone to believe any of this current nonsense, now you know. Read
those before reading this.
To be clear, I am telling you this was not a kangaroo court, but a dummy court and a totally
manufactured case, created to further split the sexes. Brand, like Harvey Weinstein and many others
before him, is just an actor playing a part, and not doing it well. In fact, doing it piss-poor on purpose,
as above, just to grind us idiot Gentiles. You don’t think that looks staged? Who arrives at court for
rape with his shirt buttoned down to his navel, wearing a crucifix and carrying a Bible? You don’t
think that looks like a big joke? Why not arrive with his dick hanging out and carrying the Kama
Sutra?
Here’s another clue, straight from The Guardian:
Brand’s barrister, Ian Winter KC, ripped into the complainants with a steely
determination. The judge, Mr Justice Bennathan, had to interrupt him during
one uncomfortable exchange about consent, saying: “Shush please. I’m the
judge, you have to let me talk.”
Reminds us of some of the ridiculous scripted badinage during the Depp/Heard fake trial, doesn’t it, as
they read from computer screens in court. Real judges in real cases don’t have lines like that. Any
attorney interrupting a judge over and over wouldn’t be told to “shush, please”. He would be sternly
warned and probably pulled into chambers and dressed down.
Here’s another clue:
Brand had stored her name in his phone alongside a series of letters and symbols. The court
heard the letter “T” stood for “tart”, while “AP” denoted anal play, and two asterisks meant:
“Never, ever forget this individual, this is a memorable encounter.”
How would they know that unless Brand told them what it meant? And why would he do that when he
has the right to remain silent? Why was he testifying against himself all along? It makes no legal
sense.
And you know what else is a joke? That word “tart”. Brand has probably never used that word in his
life. No one from his generation calls anyone a tart, not even a tart.
Rather than remain silent, Brand spent hours on the stand incriminating himself and all men, saying
things like
But there were tense moments during cross-examination in which Brand stared at the
prosecutor, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, in silence for several seconds. Occasionally he could be seen
moving his lips before speaking out loud. The prosecutor probed him about alleged
inconsistencies in his previous statements and what he has told the jury with regards to the
woman who accused him of anal rape. Brand said: “Ms Karmy-Jones, I completely agree. Since
these events occurred there’s been escalating recollection.
“It’s been a deeply traumatic episode of my life I’ve focused on at the expense of my marriage,
my children and health. I ask your forgiveness, well, not your forgiveness. I recognise that this
recollection includes small details that are inconsistent and I acknowledge that.”
He has no reason to say any of that—other than that it is in his script—and a huge reason not to. He
doesn’t have to explain any inconsistencies, or explain anything. All he has to say is he is innocent and
it didn’t happen like that. The prosecution then has to prove it did. That’s how it really works. So all
this yakking is just the usual longwinded grandstanding by Phoenician actors.
Also this:
Russell Brand has told a court that he was wrong to have used his fame and success to
“facilitate” sexual activity with women.
The 51-year-old comedian said he had “misused” his position “very selfishly” and dedicated his
life to “reckless philandering and idiocy”.
And when asked if the young fan was “just another sexual conquest” in his attempt to sleep with
5,000 women, Brand told the court: “I really don’t know the number, but it’s difficult to dispute
that’s how I conducted myself in the pursuit of willing sexual partners.” As he came to the end of
his cross-examination, Karmy-Jones challenged Brand on what he had done to upset the woman
so much. “I think I was in a position of fame, a successful person who was admired and I misused
that commodity very selfishly,” he said.
“You were in a position of power in respect of each of these
women,” the prosecutor continued, to which Brand replied: “As I
became more successful and famous I was very comfortable
allowing that to facilitate sexual access, which I agree with you was
wrong.”
None of that is against the law or pertains to rape or assault, so again there is no reason to say any of
that, other than to make himself look bad, incriminate himself, and continue the destruction of the
heterosexual relationship. Brand basically convicted himself. He was the best witness for the
prosecution.
Plus, I again have to point out how scripted that all was. The prosecutor only has to prompt Brand and
he dutifully repeats all the current Men-are-Pigs talking points. This reads like it came out of some
joint production of the Bennington College sexual politics and drama departments.
Photo, links and 3 more pages at the above link
