In this Peter Reacts, I give my thoughts on Russell Brand’s protective “magical” amulet, his conversion to Christianity, and Brand’s involvement in Rescue the Republic.
I disagree with the posts here arguing that Brand was "doing comedy". Yes, he's a comedian (among other things) and yes he had a humorous approach to promoting the magical amulets, but he was still promoting and selling modern snake oil. If he's making money from it then I don't see how he can hide behind the comedic angle. What am I missing?
I don't follow Brand generally except when I see him with other people that I do follow. My view of the whole amulet thing was that it's meant to be comedy. He doesn't actually believe in it doing anything and that he's not necessarily selling it. From what I know about him, he's making fun of the way many people sell things that they claim to work.
Maybe I'm just taking it as comedy and that's not what is actually true. Perhaps he actually believes it but I didn't get that impression.
For clarity, just because I realize what I said previously might be somewhat unclear. Brand is often talked about in corporate/establishment media as a "snake oil salesman" who is profiting off gullible people who are willing to buy amulets and other provably false medical treatments.
So in order to rob the corporate/establishment media of the narrative being panted of him, he produces videos like the ad you're reacting to purposely looking like that as a form of comedy. It's meant to subvert the things being said about him by actually selling amulets that don't work.
Also, I truly appreciated his speech at Rescue the Republic. I felt that it made more sense than usual. His speech is more like a poetic art form, rich with symbolism and metaphor. Before he became a Christian, he would usually delve into new agey ideas, which I understand (much thanks to Lindsay) but don't agree with. However, his commentary at RTR was more in line with Christian thinking. It's okay if it doesn't make sense to you. But it's not incoherent and he is not unwell.
As far as l remember from my time living in Britain, Brand was a B-rated, bit-part actor. The only way he got any press coverage was because of his hedonistic behaviour and he was lucky if he got a 1/16 page mention in a Sunday tabloid.
I'm glad he eventually got into rehab and over his drug and sex addiction unfortunately he burned his bridges in the film industry. Selling "protective' amulets is as bad as Trump selling bibles. Money must be tight and he must be desperate.
Again, I do not take offense at Trump selling bibles. It's ultra kitsch and a paradoxical joke. A lot of protestants have MANY bibles and this is just another one to add to the collection and have a laugh. People have been putting gold on bibles for years, from page edges to ornate covers. Putting Trump-gold on it is a comedic inversion imo.
I was barely aware of Brand before he started podcasting. I think he's a gifted orator. He plays the same character in movies. Not an acting genius.
I’m not a Christian or religious personally but I’m not as anti-religious as some people can be. I wouldn’t even consider myself an atheist, more agnostic. While I do understand the negative view of new age techniques or traditional ancient remedies, it’s largely deserved, I don’t get the impression that Brand is as into it as he used to be.
At most, it’s the source of his skepticism of the medical establishment.
Your assessment of whether it is pure comedy or not depends on if he is getting paid by the amulet manufacturers. If he is then he is using his status and 11M following to leverage that fee and knowingly making false claims to sell it. I have to agree with Peter on this one, he is pushing a brand, excuse the pun, of being anti establishment and telling the truth and whilst I enjoy many of his videos which seem mostly objective, I think this cheapens the brand considerably
Being paid by the amulet manufacturers doesn’t mean that he actually believes that they work. Celebrities have often promoted things they were paid to shill but that doesn’t mean that they are true believers in the functionality of the product. It’s basically the entirety of the online influencer culture.
Claims of believing in a product during an ad is not evidence that it works. You also can’t assume that the people buying the product are doing so out of belief that it actually does what it or the person promoting it says it does.
Exchange of money is not evidence of endorsement or belief, despite what people say.
I am 100% sure he does not believe the claims and maybe you and I and possibly many others can see it for what it is, however, my argument, apart from the telling of blatant lies to his followers, is that it makes him look cheap and part of the establishment he claims to be against. When celebrities choose a product to endorse, generally it is something that aligns with their particular brand or beliefs, otherwise they are just desperate for money and will sell anything. For example, you would not see Elon Musk selling this, but you might see Jeff Bezos selling it, though even in that case I think he sell it purely on the basis of aesthetics and not what it is claimed to do. Russel could have sold it on the same basis, he could have even said that it is claimed that it has these magical powers but people would have to figure that out for themselves.
Why assume that he is selling it on the basis that he believes in it or isn’t selling it on the basis of claims. For instance, there was a TV show called Gossip Girl a few years ago. It had terrible reviews in which reviewers said it was “disgusting filth” and things of that nature.
The creators of the show actually leaned into the bad reviews and intentionally added it to promotional material. They had posters and TV ads which said “New York Times reviewers called it ‘disgusting filth’ and a “vapid waste of space on your television screens’.”
Should we then conclude that the creators and advertisers actually believed that they were creating disgusting filth? Or that they intentionally made a vapid waste of space on your television screens? Did the fact that they didn’t put “New York Times CLAIMS...” means that they weren’t being funny?
I see this and say, so what? The only choice I need to make is whether or not to buy something when it's advertised. I'm not buying it. Moving on. It doesn't strike me as anything more than trying to make some money, it's not illegal, and I have no desire to try to save some theoretical population of "gullible unfortunates." There's a pressure to get sponsor dollars for content producers and a pressure to produce content. It seems like here the two forces have found a happy marriage: congratulations, Peter and Russell, you've closed the loop. I'll tune back in when you're both returned from the nothing burger feast.
Pretty funny coming from a guy who tried to pick a fight with a disabled autistic man that can to you asking for help you fucking loser. If you’re the example of atheistic morality then burning at the stake is far too kind a punishment. Get wrecked and shut your mouth on accusing others of grifting you talentless midwit
I disagree with the posts here arguing that Brand was "doing comedy". Yes, he's a comedian (among other things) and yes he had a humorous approach to promoting the magical amulets, but he was still promoting and selling modern snake oil. If he's making money from it then I don't see how he can hide behind the comedic angle. What am I missing?
I don't follow Brand generally except when I see him with other people that I do follow. My view of the whole amulet thing was that it's meant to be comedy. He doesn't actually believe in it doing anything and that he's not necessarily selling it. From what I know about him, he's making fun of the way many people sell things that they claim to work.
Maybe I'm just taking it as comedy and that's not what is actually true. Perhaps he actually believes it but I didn't get that impression.
For clarity, just because I realize what I said previously might be somewhat unclear. Brand is often talked about in corporate/establishment media as a "snake oil salesman" who is profiting off gullible people who are willing to buy amulets and other provably false medical treatments.
So in order to rob the corporate/establishment media of the narrative being panted of him, he produces videos like the ad you're reacting to purposely looking like that as a form of comedy. It's meant to subvert the things being said about him by actually selling amulets that don't work.
But again, that's just my understanding of it.
I agree. It seemed like obvious comedy.
Also, I truly appreciated his speech at Rescue the Republic. I felt that it made more sense than usual. His speech is more like a poetic art form, rich with symbolism and metaphor. Before he became a Christian, he would usually delve into new agey ideas, which I understand (much thanks to Lindsay) but don't agree with. However, his commentary at RTR was more in line with Christian thinking. It's okay if it doesn't make sense to you. But it's not incoherent and he is not unwell.
As far as l remember from my time living in Britain, Brand was a B-rated, bit-part actor. The only way he got any press coverage was because of his hedonistic behaviour and he was lucky if he got a 1/16 page mention in a Sunday tabloid.
I'm glad he eventually got into rehab and over his drug and sex addiction unfortunately he burned his bridges in the film industry. Selling "protective' amulets is as bad as Trump selling bibles. Money must be tight and he must be desperate.
Again, I do not take offense at Trump selling bibles. It's ultra kitsch and a paradoxical joke. A lot of protestants have MANY bibles and this is just another one to add to the collection and have a laugh. People have been putting gold on bibles for years, from page edges to ornate covers. Putting Trump-gold on it is a comedic inversion imo.
I was barely aware of Brand before he started podcasting. I think he's a gifted orator. He plays the same character in movies. Not an acting genius.
I’m not a Christian or religious personally but I’m not as anti-religious as some people can be. I wouldn’t even consider myself an atheist, more agnostic. While I do understand the negative view of new age techniques or traditional ancient remedies, it’s largely deserved, I don’t get the impression that Brand is as into it as he used to be.
At most, it’s the source of his skepticism of the medical establishment.
Your assessment of whether it is pure comedy or not depends on if he is getting paid by the amulet manufacturers. If he is then he is using his status and 11M following to leverage that fee and knowingly making false claims to sell it. I have to agree with Peter on this one, he is pushing a brand, excuse the pun, of being anti establishment and telling the truth and whilst I enjoy many of his videos which seem mostly objective, I think this cheapens the brand considerably
Being paid by the amulet manufacturers doesn’t mean that he actually believes that they work. Celebrities have often promoted things they were paid to shill but that doesn’t mean that they are true believers in the functionality of the product. It’s basically the entirety of the online influencer culture.
Claims of believing in a product during an ad is not evidence that it works. You also can’t assume that the people buying the product are doing so out of belief that it actually does what it or the person promoting it says it does.
Exchange of money is not evidence of endorsement or belief, despite what people say.
I am 100% sure he does not believe the claims and maybe you and I and possibly many others can see it for what it is, however, my argument, apart from the telling of blatant lies to his followers, is that it makes him look cheap and part of the establishment he claims to be against. When celebrities choose a product to endorse, generally it is something that aligns with their particular brand or beliefs, otherwise they are just desperate for money and will sell anything. For example, you would not see Elon Musk selling this, but you might see Jeff Bezos selling it, though even in that case I think he sell it purely on the basis of aesthetics and not what it is claimed to do. Russel could have sold it on the same basis, he could have even said that it is claimed that it has these magical powers but people would have to figure that out for themselves.
Why assume that he is selling it on the basis that he believes in it or isn’t selling it on the basis of claims. For instance, there was a TV show called Gossip Girl a few years ago. It had terrible reviews in which reviewers said it was “disgusting filth” and things of that nature.
The creators of the show actually leaned into the bad reviews and intentionally added it to promotional material. They had posters and TV ads which said “New York Times reviewers called it ‘disgusting filth’ and a “vapid waste of space on your television screens’.”
Should we then conclude that the creators and advertisers actually believed that they were creating disgusting filth? Or that they intentionally made a vapid waste of space on your television screens? Did the fact that they didn’t put “New York Times CLAIMS...” means that they weren’t being funny?
Snake-oil salesman. Why do people give Brand the time of day?
I love Brand but at $240, it ceased to be plausible parody. $15 k is a joke: $240 is someone’s s grocery money. Not a good look.
I see this and say, so what? The only choice I need to make is whether or not to buy something when it's advertised. I'm not buying it. Moving on. It doesn't strike me as anything more than trying to make some money, it's not illegal, and I have no desire to try to save some theoretical population of "gullible unfortunates." There's a pressure to get sponsor dollars for content producers and a pressure to produce content. It seems like here the two forces have found a happy marriage: congratulations, Peter and Russell, you've closed the loop. I'll tune back in when you're both returned from the nothing burger feast.
Pretty funny coming from a guy who tried to pick a fight with a disabled autistic man that can to you asking for help you fucking loser. If you’re the example of atheistic morality then burning at the stake is far too kind a punishment. Get wrecked and shut your mouth on accusing others of grifting you talentless midwit