Russell Brand: the idea with Russell Brand is that he’s the next Jimmy Savile—just younger (and about ten years on from that scandal). That’s what the media wants you to think about him—beloved icon, cheeky chappy Russell, is really a “sex beast”. There are some superficial similarities, they’re both entertainers and they’re both from underclass backgrounds, both come over as a bit weird—both have vague “spiritual” concerns and an overt desire to do good in the world.
Savile was smarter than Brand—I know who I’d prefer to spend an evening chatting with (on Uncle Jimmy’s knee). Brand also likes to paint himself as a victim—he likes to say “I’m the son of a single mother from Essex” as if that confers some authority upon him; ironically, it’s rather like the girls who accuse him will say “as a rape survivor” to confer some authority upon themselves.
It’s worth noting that when Brand says “from Essex” the whole point is that he’s not a typical person from Essex—a typical person from Essex is like someone from Jersey Shore or the Deano archetype, someone who owns his own plastering business and drives a bright yellow souped-up car. He might have Grecian columns on his porch (his house being a mid-sized 1960s semi).
He’s not known for his refinement or intellect—the East End of London basically emptied out into Essex to escape the Asians, so it’s that kind of atmosphere (indeed, the long-running soap Eastenders would be better set in Essex today—because there aren’t really any white people in the East End). Anyway, Brand is not a typical “Essex lad”, by any stretch of the imagination; and his quasi-intellectual aspirations also self-consciously cut against that.
I checked Brand’s natal chart and it isn’t anything as bad as Savile’s chart, and that chimes with my basic intuition—it’s about “getting Brand”. He’s a Gemini, so he has a great need to communicate—hence his evangelical pose, a constant in his life. He has alignments that indicate “child-like enthusiasm” (definitely true) and an ability for public speaking and to convince people (with the caveat that he’s a superficial person, he never goes deep down into a topic—which is very true with Brand, despite his intellectual pretensions there’s no depth to him at all).
His Lilith position is the same as Guénon’s and mine, so he does genuinely feel a mystical “oneness” with the cosmos—but he expresses it in quite a glib and childish way. Savile, by contrast, had the same Lilith as Churchill—which reads as “hell” and a particular interest in extreme sex. That’s not on Brand’s chart, but what is on his chart is a tendency to use violence or to be ruthless in the pursuit of his objectives (as a minor alignment).
The accusations against him seem to be mostly frivolous. I glanced at Metro yesterday and one accusation was that “he had sex with ‘Ms X’ up against a wall in LA”, it just made laugh hysterically as I thought to myself “sounds terrible”. To me, it just read as “I had sex with a famous man and he refused to marry me,” but maybe I’m wrong.
The only actual “serious accusation” was the one he was originally reported to the police for back in 2003 or so. It’s that he forced a girl to fellate him. Well, that might fit with the “violence and ruthless pursuit of objectives”, especially since he was about 23 and newly famous then—I could imagine he might have been on a high and rode roughshod over people. But at the end of the day, we’re talking about what happened between two people in a room 20 years ago—and without a lot of context. I don’t see how he could be convicted now, and I don’t think it’s anything more than a hit job to take him out.
One thing Brand doesn’t know about which Savile did is “cosmic harmony”. From a certain perspective, you can’t say Savile was good or bad; why? Because he’s like one of those garden sprinklers with two nozzles that spray water out clockwise and counterclockwise so the whole thing spins round.
Savile balanced out his sexual escapades with loads of charity work—the material explanation is people found it psychologically difficult to challenge someone who did so much for “the kiddies”, the magical explanation is that Savile achieved a kind of cosmic balance (he made sure he put a lot of “good” in for all the “bad”, hence he could spin round like the yin-yang symbol, like a cosmic sprinkler system—it accords with the magical position itself, the unus mundus, where “good” and “evil” don’t exist).
Brand, by contrast, might have spiritual aspirations but he’s not a magical figure—he didn’t balance his karma out, just started to act as a “good” person, a “wellness” advisor, and as soon as you play white knight you’re vulnerable; especially when you’ve led an exuberant life before and especially if you decide to make enemies. Brand has always been more “oppositional” and less “conservative” than Savile (who was careful to snuggle up to royalty and had no “revolutionary” aspirations), and so he made himself more of a target.
I don’t think he’s malevolent like Savile or constitutionally evil, but his problem is that he has sold himself as a “good person”, a righteous crusader, and now things have been revealed, even if tendentious, that make it all but impossible to sustain that image—and he lives by his image in two respects, in the first place he makes his living from it; and, in the second place, he depends on the feedback and adoration he gets from his audience. If you look at Brand’s YouTube channel he puts a halo around himself—and that’s quite common in modernity; but it’s an inversion really, because it’s to claim you’re a saint (when you’re not, when you think “sainthood” isn’t real).