Al Worth and Tucker Russell dissect Piers Morgan's interviews with Russell Brand, critiquing Brand's evasive answers on vaccines, climate change, and his contradictory claims of being a Christian despite past "sexual predator" allegations. The analysis highlights Brand's inappropriate physical contact with Morgan, counting 25 arm touches and four thigh touches, alongside conspiracy theories linking Morgan to Satan. Ultimately, the discussion exposes how both guests prioritize conflict-driven narratives over factual accountability, undermining their credibility while profiting from polarized audiences. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Supporting The Awakening Wonder00:04:39
This is propaganda live.
I only suggest how she can have to vote.
What a fantastic and special show it is.
Russell Brand is a famous rapist.
This is just from memory.
You can just go, hold on, but they said that, they said that.
I became a Christian preempting that charges would appear from deep history.
I went to one white party.
What?
What are you talking about?
I'm a migrant right now in the United States.
In fact, I would call myself an exile, a political exile.
Lying, probably true.
Inevitably, I lie sometimes.
I feel that Christ may have had a better vision.
I'm the main problem.
I'm the main problem.
Let's go full screen on Russell.
This is on Brand, a podcast where we discuss the ideas and antics of one, Russell Brand.
I'm Al Worth, and every show I go through an episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand in order to dissect and debunk it.
And this week, well, we get to the interview that Russell recently did with Piers Morgan and.
Boy, are we in for a journey.
But before we get there, if anyone wants to support the show financially by becoming an Awakening Wonder, head to patreon.comslash onbrand and sign up, and you will have my eternal gratitude, as well as being able to access additional content and a completely ad free version of this show.
Some wonderful wonders have signed up lately, including Janet Allen, Kelly Payne, Dollhouse, and Simon Shirley.
Thank you all so much for becoming Awakening Wonders.
You are deeply appreciated, as are the rest of you wonders.
And if I missed anyone's shout outs, Please drop me an email at theonbrandpart at gmail.com and I will get to it.
If you're not a patron for whatever reason, please don't forget to follow this show wherever you're getting it and leave me a nice review if you can because that stuff does genuinely help.
Tiniest bit of housekeeping up top here.
Firstly, a minor correction.
Last week I made fun of Kamala Harris for having a picture on her website entitled Hero.
But what I didn't know, and a couple of listeners helpfully pointed out, is that the hero picture is a common term in web design for like the big picture at the top of a website.
Which may explain it.
Of course, what's sad is that Kamala Harris having a picture of herself entitled Hero is entirely believable, but in this case, we'll go with the logical conclusion that it was just a web design thing.
So thank you to the Wonders who pointed it out.
Second, it would be strange not to say something, but Friends of the Pod, Dan Friesen, and Jordan Holmes over at Knowledge Fight have decided to call it a day in their coverage of Alex Jones after nearly a decade and more than a Thousand episodes.
They served as an inspiration to this show and countless others, and the work they did in terms of both entertainment and providing information is almost unparalleled.
Boys, you have earned yourselves a little breaky.
Four stars, go home and tell your mother you're brilliant.
Now then, with that out of the way, let's get into this week's show.
As mentioned, we will be looking at Russell's appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored, and I do need to get a few things clear from the jump.
I've seen a lot of discourse praising Pierce for making Russell look like an idiot, and a lot of people saying, Oh, I do hate Piers Morgan, but this was good, wasn't it?
And no, no, it wasn't.
Piers Morgan deserves absolutely no credit for platforming Russell, even if Russell did make a tit of himself.
At the end of the day, Russell was there to promote his new book, which he did several times, and in this world, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
While we may look at Russell and think his performance to be embarrassing, his audience will ultimately treat him with sympathy and suggest he was set up and cornered, which is exactly What happened.
All the while, Russell's name is in the headlines again, as is the fact he has a new book, and so it will boost sales.
The responsible thing for Piers would have been not to have Russell on his show at all.
Russell doesn't need any help making a tit of himself, he does it every single week.
Now, a couple of weeks ago, I described Piers Morgan as a failed rectal exam, and it's a description I stand by, but there are a couple of areas where I do actually need to give him credit.
Specifically, those areas are his journalistic and broadcasting abilities.
It's easy to forget because the man's show is mostly made up of people yelling at each other, but when Piers Morgan puts a bit of effort in, the decades he spent in journalism and broadcast media can really pay off.
Pushback On Drug Confessions00:07:02
And that is okay.
It is okay to accept that this situation shouldn't have occurred were Piers being responsible, but he does a pretty good job of interviewing Russell and, in particular, offering pushback where required.
So let's get into the first clip, and it's Piers finding an old quote from Russell back from when they first met.
When I interviewed you for GQ, I went and found it yesterday.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, my word.
20, literally 20 years ago.
It was March 2006.
We met at a trendy bistro near Tottenham Court Road in London.
That was the first time I'd ever interviewed you.
You were 31 at the time.
Wow.
And I was quite gushing.
I said, I assumed I'd find Brand irritating, pointless, and easy target.
But I was wrong.
He was charming, articulate, outrageous, and very, very funny.
We roamed through two hours through his extraordinary life a nonstop orgy of comedy, drugs, bulimia, hookers, four in a bed romps, and celebrity bed notches.
And then, for some reason, I asked you halfway through, Are you a more successful sexual predator now that you don't drink?
And you replied, Yes, but I resent the word predator.
I like to think of myself as a conduit of natural forces.
After all, the most natural thing in the world for people to do is fuck, isn't it?
And people want to do it.
So all you have to do is remove all the reasons why women don't actually go through with it, like pride and reputation.
You just have to unpick the conditions stopping women going straight to bed with you.
Hmm.
That sounds like charm, seduction, game.
Is that what that sounds like?
Because to me, it sounds more like someone brazenly bragging about how they manipulate women into sex.
And if you're having to convince someone to sleep with you, they probably don't want to sleep with you.
It's fair to say that past Russell is doing absolutely no favors for current Russell.
And I am curious how much that will factor into his criminal trial later this year.
I think most people will probably have found that quote quite troubling, but turns out Russell's actually quite pleased with it.
All of us have the idea that there's an object of ourselves that people are commenting on a facade, a mask.
Obviously, the word hypocrite comes from mask wearer.
Now, you have an identity in public, I have an identity in public, and what I can hear there, man, and it warms me, is I was being 100% honest, and I'm being 100% honest now.
I'm not afraid of the truth.
So, if justice is real, if telling the truth is how a person's meant to operate, I was telling the truth then.
And I can feel that.
I mean, 31, you know, that sounds like a 19 year old, really, but I was stunted in many ways, like a lot of crackheads and smackheads.
You kind of formaldehyde yourself in addiction somewhat.
Yeah, I know a few people in recovery, and none of them were doing that, Russell.
Like, just as lack of maturity isn't an excuse for being a scumbag, neither is being an addict.
There are plenty of addicts out there who don't go around coercing women into sex and then bragging about it.
This would be like Hitler being on trial and saying, Well, I did do some pretty bad stuff, but you know, guys, I have bipolar and I was on a lot of drugs.
So, you know, it's unconvincing, is what I'm getting at.
And from here, Piers asks a valid question.
My question, I think, looking back on it and the lifestyle that you've talked about very openly now, looking back on that and saying, Look, I was out of control, taking all these drugs, sleeping with all these whatever, is.
How can you be sure that your own memory is good, is sound, is reliable, is truthful?
Most people who've slept with thousands of women and taken barrel loads of drugs and led this incredibly hedonistic lifestyle, I would think if I interviewed them and asked them to name even what year it was, would struggle to remember.
Can you be certain, if you're honest, that your memory is completely sound, accurate?
Do you remember half this stuff?
Well, yes, I can be honest.
It's a relevant question, isn't it?
Of course, it is.
Yes, I can be honest and I am honest.
And I think what's an important distinction is that I was a drug addict prior to becoming famous.
So that was a very different rhythm and time.
And I think the question was has it made you a more successful predator?
And even then, I objected to the idea of predation as persecutory, but predation is simply an amplification of looking for something with intention.
Now, I don't particularly think Piers has set Russell up here.
He's leaving plenty of room for Russell to answer the question and meander about, and in doing so, Russell has managed to find himself a rake and step on it with such force that he's trying to argue predation is just looking for something with intent.
You know, as one would search for their car keys or their phone.
Famously, that's how leopards do it in the wild.
They're just wandering about the plains of Africa going, Now, where did I leave that?
Ah, found it!
Here's that gazelle for me to kill and eat.
Yeah, that's how predators work.
Anyway, after a bit of a ramble, he does finally answer the question.
But the reason I remember is because I remember, because I was there, because I'm present, and because the whole thing was very live and alive.
I have a good memory.
And particularly, obviously, this is something I've had to reflect on and go.
You were clean from 2002.
December the 13th, 2002 is the date I got.
Some of the allegations go back to 99.
So there must have been some crossover.
Well, without wanting to get into the specificity of the criminal matter, that's not generally the complexion.
And in the variation from that generality, there are other indicators that make it clear that my memory is reliable.
So, my memory can be trusted because I have a good memory, including when I was off my tits on heroin and crack.
Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
Like, even without a boatload of drugs, eyewitness testimony can be seriously unreliable.
Like, memories have been shown to be malleable, especially over time, and often that's a thing that works against the victims of sexual assault, particularly if there's a lack of DNA evidence, and it's part of why only one in 70 reported rapes in the UK are actually taken to court.
In Russell's case, of course, well, that's a little bit different because there is a clear established pattern.
many, many victims and a substantial amount of evidence already available to the public, let alone what will come out as trial.
Whereas his defense is, hey, I have a good memory.
Trapped By Vaccine Questions00:15:27
So now we move to the subject of COVID 19, and Russell almost immediately starts getting evasive.
How much of a medical crisis was it indeed?
And what was the role in media?
If we step back for a moment and watch what happened during that time.
Many millions of people died.
Who was vilified?
Who was condemned?
What are the excess deaths now?
Who's controlling these statistics?
That everywhere you look, Piers, there's such astonishing anomalies.
But you accept many millions of people die from COVID, do you?
I'm so uncertain about what happened at that time that I believe that I use it mostly now as a kind of lens.
To look at how disgusting our culture has become, how appalling, how condemnatory.
But why are you avoiding my question?
Because I have a better one.
Because I have a better one.
What's a better one?
Who believes, even for an instant, that the function of government and media is to protect us and take care of us anymore?
Yeah, that's not a better question.
It just isn't.
In fact, it's pretty irritating.
If someone asked me where I wanted to go for lunch and I responded, who among us trusts any place of commerce under capitalism?
I think I would very quickly be eating alone and rightly fucking so.
Russell dancing around direct questions will become a little bit of a theme throughout this, and the COVID part goes for a good 20 minutes.
So let's jump to the middle portion of it where Pierce asks a perfectly valid hypothetical question.
Out of interest, had you been Prime Minister when the COVID pandemic broke out, what would you have done?
All right, this is what I would do I would immediately.
Just to put it in context, you're seeing in Italy and Lombardy.
They're seeing thousands of people a day.
I know, I remember.
We remember that.
Because they lived in big family groups in houses.
Yes.
And it was ripping through, as it did through our care homes, for example.
I'd pay attention to them hazmat suits in China that suddenly disappeared and those stories of people dying in the street that sort of disappeared.
The origin of it is one issue.
But once it's broken out and it's clearly killing a lot of people very quickly and it's clearly going to come to our doorstep, you as the Prime Minister, what would you do?
Firstly, this the very office of Prime Minister and executive power to that degree.
Is absurd and corruptible, and it's one of the primary problems that must be addressed.
Forms of technocracy, and that means government by some experts, that's what that means, could be really, really helpful in a true democracy.
What I believe should have happened, or could have happened, because that's really what you're asking me about the pandemic period, is that we should have remained open to a variety of views, including the views that were deliberately shut down and censored from the get go from prominent and valid experts like, e.g., Peter McCulloch, Robert Malone, J. Bhattacharya.
Ah, so he would have been taking advice from the widely discredited COVID conspiracy theorists cosplaying as experts while selling their own lines of ivermectin to any idiot who would listen.
Considering he supposedly wants to be mayor of London, I don't find this a particularly encouraging take, and otherwise he would seemingly dissolve the office of prime minister in the UK, which, listen, there are some good arguments for doing such a thing, but there are many reasons why, particularly in the UK, it just isn't.
Terribly practical.
Collective leadership usually doesn't scale up very well.
Plus, over here, we vote for a party to lead the country, not for a person.
And though that party will, of course, have a leader deciding the overall direction, the party leader is ultimately replaceable and the party will still remain in power.
So, really, it's probably less corruptible than, say, the office of President of the United States.
And what's fun for me is that Russell likes to make this argument about high office in general, but never seems to suggest getting rid of the presidency.
It's almost as though he knows he'd lose his entire audience if he brought it up.
And what's most fun about that, of course, is that Donald Trump is the most brazenly corrupt U.S. president in recorded history.
Now, a little background to the next clip.
Pierce has in the past offered mea culpa about how hardline he was during COVID, particularly on the subject that everyone should get vaccinated and that the vaccinated won't spread COVID and that vaccines prevent transmission of COVID 19, basically.
This is because he was following the advice being given at the time when information was changing pretty quickly.
And he generally seems to be offering this to appease his more conspiratorial audience members.
Interestingly enough, the COVID 19 vaccine does appear to inhibit the spread of COVID 19 in nearly 40% of cases, according to one study, even though that's not what the vaccine was ever designed for.
But hey, let's not allow reality to get in the way of a really good right wing talking point now, shall we?
Regardless, this next clip does highlight a stark difference between Piers and Russell.
The way we're different is this I still believe.
That the vaccine saved millions of lives.
Yes.
A lot of people don't.
No, I don't.
You don't.
But I do.
Good.
Okay, that's good.
That will be something you'll potentially be adjusting in the future, Piers.
And when you do, you may have another mea culpa to offer to your audience because it seems significant to me that that crisis benefited some very powerful interests, granted further governmental powers, instantiated the ability to govern at a global level, revealed just how willing people would be to take a medicine, a concoction, let's call it a little more accurately, that's.
It seems like it might be extremely deleterious, causing infertility, miscarriage, myocarditis, and that that was something that was undertaken with a degree of complicity, at least.
Do you believe in vaccines generally?
I have the kind of questions that anyone that's paying attention to.
I mean, there was a little outbreak of measles recently.
Even RFK was giving evidence yesterday and said he absolutely believes in the measles vaccine.
In fact, he said, I'm not anti vax at all.
In fact, he said, I support most vaccines.
He's all right.
He had legitimate questions about the COVID vaccine because the speed at which that was designed.
Yeah, he's all right.
In your case, are you.
Anti or vaccine?
No, I don't.
Which vaccines do you accept are good?
Calm down and slow down.
It's a serious question.
I understand it's a serious question.
Of course it is, but I want you to calm down and slow down.
Because, well, then, in which case, unyoke yourself from the conditioning of the world you've found yourself in.
He then goes on to quote Noam Chomsky, which isn't the best look.
And don't worry, everyone, because I get the feeling Russell will very shortly come to regret being such a condescending person.
Prick to someone who was interviewing him, calm down and slow down indeed.
Nevertheless, Russell is refusing to answer whether he believes that vaccines work generally, and he described the COVID 19 vaccine as a concoction that might be deleterious to people's health en masse and is, you know, killing people via things like myocarditis.
He's been doing this a while now, but it bears repeating.
The things he's citing have almost uniformly been symptoms of long COVID, though, yes, the vaccine itself does and has harmed a fractional portion of the population because that is.
Just how vaccines work.
In every single case, there are potentially serious side effects, but they are often incredibly rare to the tune of, you know, one in every hundred thousand.
It is very much the trolley problem played out in real time, where we as a society have allowed for the potential sacrifice of a tiny number of people in order to ensure the health and survival of the remainder.
It can feel brutal, but it is ultimately for the common good.
Of course, in order to believe and understand that long COVID carries many horrendous and debilitating symptoms, You first have to believe that COVID 19 is real.
But by answering the question in the way that I want to, I can, I think, tell you a lot.
I'm not saying educate you.
I'd never be so bold.
Very happy to be educated.
But that's not like my intention, and that's not what I believe is happening.
I would like you to educate me.
This is what I think I believe in maximum personal sovereignty and freedom.
I believe that if you empower individuals and individual communities to the maximum, that you will get, if not better results, at least fairer results.
You won't save them from a killer virus.
Well, as it turns out, there wasn't one.
Well, of course there was.
Okay.
I would say this is what I would do.
Our best evidence suggests currently that this virus is pretty significant.
And some people don't know.
I know five people personally who die from it.
Yeah, well, check out the statistics around people dying from vaccines, Piers, because that's much, much, much more important and significant, not least because the people that died from the vaccines were doing what the government told them to do.
Can you think of any vaccine in history where people haven't died from side effects?
Look, Piers.
Do you know any?
Do you?
Yet, this has very much got the vibe of a student who hasn't done his homework being given a pop quiz in front of the entire class.
And it turns out being loud and confident about something, like proclaiming that COVID 19 doesn't exist, doesn't play terribly well when the person interviewing you exists in reality and not the far right media sphere.
Had Russell said that in front of almost any of his regular guests, you know, Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson, Candace Owens, right?
He would have been yes and it.
They would have gone, well, yeah, of course COVID doesn't exist.
Hell, even Joe Rogan might go along with such a thing.
But say that to someone who isn't there to profit from the same grift, and you quickly wind up in trouble because you don't know anything and have just been talking shit for the last six years.
Finally, Russell does sort of answer the question, but not before some significant protest.
So for me, when you ask me a question, what would you do if you're prime minister or what vaccines, like, in a way, who knows, who cares?
What I believe in.
Is that the systems themselves, if not radically reevaluated urgently, immediately to be in alignment with some true values?
And I mean the values of God, however, you understand God and you know how I do.
If that doesn't take place pretty soon, we're going to be living in hell or something akin to it.
And many people already are.
The creeping shores of hell are all around us everywhere.
And so, why would you spend this time sort of pressing me on how much I know about vaccines or this vaccine or that?
Well, only because you've talked about it so much.
And it's a simple question.
You're either someone who believes in vaccines as a concept or you don't.
It's not a difficult question.
You've just chosen to take 20 minutes to avoid answering it.
I've not chosen to.
I've pointed out that by focusing on it, it reveals a sort of modality of not trying to detect what someone's actually attempting to say.
And with a vaccine or an illness, the simple answer is I would look at the risks versus benefits and get the best advice I could and make a decision based on that and would suggest everyone does that.
And I don't think medical matters should be an enforced global legal issue.
And when one is, I think it's a good question.
You don't have to answer this question if you think it's two persons.
I know that no one has to answer any questions.
I know, I know.
You've got three young children.
Are they being vaccinated at all?
I feel like you're just sort of sniffing around for headlines, and I just think it's not worth it.
I'm really not.
I have heard Russell in the recent past boast about the fact that none of his children are vaccinated.
I don't know to what extent that is accurate, given that it's come out of Russell's mouth, but it does tickle me that he's refused to answer it here.
I also.
Somewhat foolishly, I did not isolate that clip at the time, but I'm going to go back and see if I can find it because, yeah, he has definitely fucking said that.
Otherwise, that clip there should give a sense of Russell's vibe for most of this interview.
He very much argues, hey, why are you asking me all these questions about me?
We should be talking about the bigger picture here, which, firstly, is not how an interview works, especially when it's about your latest autobiography and you are the subject matter of the book.
But secondly, he's landed himself in a bit of a logical trap with it.
See, in saying, you know, what do I think about vaccines or COVID?
Who knows?
Who cares?
He's absolving himself of all responsibility regarding the many, many questions.
COVID and anti vax conspiracy theories he signed on to over the last six years.
And basically all of them.
And the reason he has more responsibility than most is that at his peak, he was yelling about this nonsense and positioning himself as an authority on it to millions of people on a weekly basis.
Now, however, hey, who knows, who cares?
It doesn't matter what I say or think, which, sure thing, you fucking weasel.
Except he then simultaneously wants to be taken seriously for his opinions on political systems.
At large, which means once again positioning himself as an authority who deserves to be listened to.
And you can't do both.
Either stand by what you've said, stand by all your conspiracy theory bullshit, and consider yourself someone who should be listened to, as Piers probably tears you to pieces, or it doesn't matter what you say or think, and you should shut the fuck up about things you clearly don't know or understand.
Pick one, you don't get to do both.
Now, from here, Russell gets offended at the idea that he thinks Alex Jones is great.
Right before he talks at length about how great he thinks Alex Jones is, you've cited two people where you think the pendulum is swinging the right way Alex Jones and David Icke.
Alex Jones had a billion dollar one second.
Hang on, no, but you're already misrepresenting my view once again.
You're doing it live.
What I'm saying is, Alex Jones, I'm using them deliberately to demonstrate the idea of an extreme, and over time, the tendency of more people having access to information is we're moving closer to that.
I'm not saying, even though you know, dear old David Icke would back this up to his.
Death, that the Queen's actually a lizard or whatever, but he was sure right about them pedophiles.
Of course, it's wrong that Alex Jones said that thing about Sandy Hook.
That's terrible, and those parents must have grieved all the harder for the terrible insensitivity.
But let's not forget that he somehow knew that the Twin Towers were going down.
Let's pay attention to where he's correct.
And in fact, why don't we do it?
He knew the Twin Towers were going down.
Oh my God, there's video footage of him in 1997.
There's a guy, he's going to blow up the Twin Towers.
Everyone's seen it, the relevant audience know.
Now, where you are, and we're moving through it.
This is complete nonsense.
No, it's not.
Osama bin Laden tried to blow up.
The World Trade Center.
Yeah, but the genesis of that whole story is that whatever he said, he had no intimate knowledge of any Al Qaeda plot to take down the Twin Towers.
What had happened is that several years before, Bin Laden had attacked the World Trade Center.
You are right in this moment, advocating for the worst impulses in humanity.
No, you are.
No.
You're trying to make me think that Alex Jones knew that 9 11 was going to happen.
He knew it as a fact.
He had been given information that meant Al Qaeda were going to take it down.
Bullshit.
Bullshit indeed.
Piers is bang on the money here.
Alex Jones has long maintained a relatively scattershot approach when it comes to conspiracy theories, and if you fling enough spaghetti at a wall, eventually something is going to stick.
So, when you take a guy who tried to blow up the World Trade Center and keep saying he's going to blow up the World Trade Center, it isn't exactly a feat of fucking Nostradamus to say, hey, that guy over there is going to blow up the World Trade Center.
Challenging Climate Narratives00:15:21
Nonetheless, Russell has been listening to Alex Jones for so long, he genuinely considers Alex.
To be some kind of shaman or prophet.
It's like when you do the trick of pulling a coin from behind a child's ear and give it to them.
It's impressive to the child because they don't know how the trick works, plus you just gave them something they wanted.
In Russell's case, he doesn't know how anything works, and what he wants is a juicy conspiracy theory and an easy way of explaining the world.
Meanwhile, Alex is laughing all the way to the bank while this asshole furthers the Alex Jones was right mythos.
Next, Pierce wants to quiz Russell on some of the beliefs he used to have and how they've changed.
Quite rapidly over the last few years.
Specifically, he wants to ask about vegetarianism and veganism and the fact that Russell now eats meat, but Russell gets distracted.
Take vegetarianism, right?
You became a vegetarian at age 14 after you're influenced by the Smiths' album Meat is Murdered.
Man, this is government water.
Can I have some non government water, please, out of a bottle?
Because, you know, I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Not on Piers Morgan, where everything's underlined with absolute truth.
But the efficacy of those vaccines.
You know, eat.
Could I get butter water that's not directly from the.
You know.
Not to be difficult.
Someone.
You know, okay.
Yeah, Russell is concerned about the quality of tap water in the US, not because of places like Flint, Michigan, where up until a few years ago the water was literally poisonous.
No, no.
Russell is concerned that the government are putting chemicals in the water, presumably to control people.
He unfortunately doesn't elaborate on it, and Pierce doesn't ask specifically what the problem might be, but yeah, I strongly suspect it's likely in the Alex Jones vein of they're turning the frogs gay, that kind of thing.
So.
Russell will happily drink methylene blue, take ivermectin, and down a multitude of supplements live in front of his audience, but he won't drink water from a tap.
His priorities are interesting.
If anyone's wondering what Russell's answer was to the fact that he now eats meat, basically his wife was having lamb one day and he really wanted some, and then someone said to him, Hey Russell, it's them or us.
It's them or us.
Which, no, it isn't.
Like, if you don't kill and eat that lamb, it's going to become a sheep and have a happy sheep life, mooching about a field and eating grass.
It's not going to hunt you down and kill you.
This isn't an existential battle.
Well, it is for the sheep, actually.
Tofu's pretty great.
Anyway, on to the next change in beliefs, and climate change is up next.
Climate change?
Don't just shout.
Is this what we're reduced to?
What's happened?
Have you disengaged?
No, no.
Just in your book, 2014 book Revolution.
You called for a revolution in big corporations, existing political and economic systems.
You collaborated with Naomi Klein saying, ditch capitalism, save the planet, or ditch the planet and save capitalism.
And you wanted people to take down massive corporations like Exxon to save the planet.
But since 2023, you've shifted, it appears, to be more towards climate change being a lot of nonsense.
What do you feel?
I no longer believe that the state in any form.
Is capable of meaningfully and in good grace representing the will of the people.
So, any edict that comes out of there, be very skeptical and, in fact, always investigate what the conclusions they draw are.
For example, climate change is the example you've selected.
Just interrogate what their proposals are, look at the proposals coldly, and then consider do you think this is because of climate change or is it because they want to change ideas?
Do you believe climate change is real?
I actually, similar to vaccines, I'm not trying to sit on the fence here.
I would say, I don't know, because I don't think it's possible to know.
I've heard that there are intergalactic influences on what's that brilliant man's name?
Randall Carlson says that, like, even sort of there can be influence in our environment that goes way beyond human causes.
Okay, so it's space stuff again.
Yep, that's where we are.
Russell doesn't want to sit on the fence, and so instead he will merrily rattle off even the most absurd argument against doing anything to fix the climate crisis we find ourselves in.
And for the rest of the time, well, if the government says anything, don't trust it.
Unless it's Trump, of course.
He gets a pass because reasons.
So Pierce says to Russell, basically, you're very anti establishment in a blanket sort of way, but have no ideas of how to fix anything, which is a critique I've long agreed with.
And Russell has an answer.
He has a response to this, except, well, he really does want some water.
Firstly, find faith and integrity in yourself.
Do whatever you can.
Pray.
Find God.
Secondly, We cannot have systems that prioritize the centralization of power, whether that's representative democracy or this global commercialism.
But what would you do?
Use the technology that we currently have.
All right, good, this is the bit I wanted to get to.
Can I have a glass of water?
I mean, as Associated Press.
Well, they're not under any obligation to give us bonds.
Oh, I see.
Well, actually, this guy, my mate, Jake.
We are trying to find you something.
They're not our servants.
No, absolutely.
Hold on a minute.
I'm not declaring these.
They don't all work for us.
We're just hiring their studios.
No, I know that.
And I think I've established quite a good rapport.
We should be cognizant they're not.
But with my mate Jake, though, who's over there, who actually is working for me, who I'm directing it to.
And also, there was one or two other people.
So it's not just the clear.
I'm not sort of like going, all right, get me some water, man.
I'm directing the CP that they should get you a nice bottle of water.
Well, I just thought that the facility itself might have, amidst its many benefits, water.
Thank you so much.
That's so kind.
Was the obligation crossing the camera, crossing the floor?
See, thank you very much.
I really do appreciate that glass of water.
Would you like some?
Don't be proud.
I'm good, man.
I like the tap water.
You like the government water?
Love it.
Yeah, no problem.
Even if it kills me.
I can't keep drinking the government water, Piers.
I can't keep taking the government water.
Actually, the water here is some of the cleanest in the world, but you know that.
Look, you're a very argumentative and obstreperous individual.
Not at all.
I just like to challenge people.
You've even argued with that.
I like to challenge people.
They are in New York City, for anyone wondering, which apparently has some of the highest quality, safest, and best tasting municipal water in the US.
Of course, That little distraction also gave Russell another full minute of not having to answer the question.
As for the studio they're in, Piers Morgan records his show at the Associated Press building where he hires a studio out.
After this interview, Russell went to great lengths to describe the AP building as both Orwellian and Kafkaesque in its design and security features because he is a pretentious dick.
Russell continues not really answering the question, and so Piers asks him another one before Russell immediately tries to avoid answering that question as well.
What kind of Christian are you?
I'm like a kind of Christian that has to hang by a thin thread of faith, knowing that I am broken, that you are broken.
Do you have a denomination or not?
I'm not asking it.
No, I'm very.
It's not an allegation.
I'm just asking you a thing.
I don't think everything is another allegation.
I know you do.
If you don't mind me saying, was everything okay in that interview we did in 2006?
Yes.
But you are slightly hypersensitive to that kind of thing.
I think because you don't really do many interviews, if I'm honest, you don't do.
This is the first interview you've done with any Brit, for example, since.
Delegations.
I'm grateful to you for doing it, but you are slightly hypersensitive to anyone challenging you because most of the media you do, you don't really get challenged.
Don't mind being challenged, and I want to be challenged, actually, and I like being challenged.
We will see further on in this interview just how much Russell likes to be challenged, but it is accurate to say that Russell hasn't really been in a hard hitting or challenging interview for the last six years or more.
And prior to that, he was still masquerading as a lefty.
So you'd probably be looking at around, you know, 2018 when he was arguing with Candace Owens, which would make this interview here probably the first actual challenge Russell has had since he became a far right conspiracy.
Theorist douchebag.
In case anyone was wondering why it doesn't seem to be going well for him, this is a man who was completely unprepared to answer basic questions, let alone be challenged in any way.
There is a part of me that loves his answer to the Christianity question, though.
It'd be like someone asking me, Hey, what kind of musician are you?
And me saying, Well, I'm the kind of musician who really values the notes, you know?
Okay, but what instrument do you play?
Well, Aren't we all an instrument of some kind?
It's just, it's so intensely and unnecessarily evasive.
Though for Russell, it is a little bit necessary because he doesn't want to have to pick a denomination and piss off half his audience and potentially lose money.
So to you and I, it's a simple question.
To him, it's an interrogation of why he's such a slippery prick.
And Russell knows this, and most likely Piers knows this as well, though obviously I don't have that confirmed.
Now, from here, they get into a little heated moment as to why Russell is so sensitive, which ultimately comes down to stop asking me questions about myself and ask me about how we should change the world before Pierce asks Russell about his Bible.
Now, Russell went off on one again, and Pierce asks again about the Bible.
And from there, we got the most viral clip of Russell in quite some time.
Was that the one you took into court?
Yeah, the very one.
Okay.
What was your thinking of taking it into court?
And what you were seeing looking at some passages, what were the relevant passages to you?
All right.
Thank you for asking me.
Thank you.
I didn't hurt, did I?
A little bit.
Such a baby.
It was this from Isaiah.
You're right.
Briar did say, you know, be chilled.
Sometimes I lose the chill, man.
It's pretty.
It's this.
They don't like that, do they, in the old gallery?
But remember, you just said it's a hired spot.
This is from Isaiah.
Excuse me.
I wonder if it's a more perfect one.
It says here.
The verse that I was looking at that day was not this.
I can't actually find the verse that I had that day, but this is good enough.
The moment where Piers does a full Jim from the office look to camera is pure comedy gold.
Were this a bit someone had written, I would have no notes.
See, this is the other variation of a child who hasn't done their homework.
Oh, I did do it.
I just, I can't seem to find it right now.
Hang on.
Let me fumble around in my bag for a while until eventually you let me sit down.
Oh, to cap it off, after this aired and Russell was roundly mocked, he posted a video to X saying, I found it, Piers.
And he reads a different Bible verse, and it's all just, it's very, very sad.
Delightful as that moment is for those of us who think Russell Brand is a dipshit, put yourself in the position of one of his audience members because.
Viewed in a different light, you might think, well, it is difficult to perform under pressure when you're, you know, suddenly put on the spot.
And you might find yourself treating that moment with a lot more sympathy.
And, oh, I haven't actually been keeping up with Russell that much.
Oh, he has a new book out, does he?
Oh, and it's about Christianity.
Well, I love Christianity.
Quick, let me go and buy that book from Tucker Carlson's website.
Again, it's a delightful moment of Schadenfreude, but it really has only served to benefit Russell by keeping his name in the headlines and on TikTok.
Talk for a few extra days, which is why this conversation should never have happened.
And as the cherry on top, Russell has actually turned this moment into a bit of a meme, filming moments of himself trying to find a passage in a book and then saying, Ah, what you should read is my new book out now, right?
He's fully just turned it into advertising for himself.
Now then, after Russell reads his Bible passage, he goes into the same sort of calm voice that he used to do meditations with, you know, back when he was still.
Pretending to be, you know, the kind of yogi kind of guy.
And he continues that voice for a while here.
You're fallen, Piers.
I'm fallen.
We will participate in this world in a fallen way.
And I reckon the reason me and you both love Bear at Grills, in spite of our sort of, I don't know, whatever this chemistry is, is because he is sincere and he demonstrates Christ.
And I do have a tendency to, as a raconteur and as an entertainer or whatever, try to present stuff.
And I do have a tendency, I think, as a person that's felt even prior to all this happening, I feel like I'm being under attack my whole life anyway.
And that if I wasn't famous and if I wasn't sleeping with loads of women, I wasn't worth knowing or even worth anything or even worth being alive.
Yeah, it's called a persecution complex, Russell.
And it is jarringly common amongst figures on the far right.
This is a man who has literally claimed that the MI5, the British military, the British government, and the CIA have all been out to get him and shut him down.
And of course, his contemporaries all have similar complaints of being cancelled or censored, and they complain loudly to their audiences of millions, to the point where if they're not getting as much online engagement as usual, they will cry conspiracy.
It's almost as pathetic as Russell describing himself as a raconteur.
And yes, for some reason, Bear Grylls is friends with both Russell Brand and Piers Morgan.
There are times when it is perfectly fair to judge a person by the company they keep, and this is one of them.
Satan Versus Buddhist Atheist00:09:15
From here, Russell is the one to bring up the question of his denomination again, and things start to fall apart pretty quickly.
I suppose why I got rankled even at the asking about the denomination is because it's so beautiful in its purity and its formlessness.
But most Christians have no problem saying what denomination they are.
It's not like I've got a problem with it.
I've got this challenge.
And I'm a Catholic.
I've got no problem telling you.
I know, but you're very different.
You're very different.
But why?
Why is it so difficult to answer?
It's not difficult to answer.
I'm really interested in Catholicism.
Really interested in it.
Because you were an atheist.
Because you were an atheist.
I kind of love it.
You then were a Buddhist.
See, that's like.
What did you want to do?
That's antagonistic.
No, it's not.
It's factual.
You were an atheist.
Oh, where are you going to be next?
You were a Muslim.
That's what some people think.
A Jew?
A Scientologist?
That's what some people think.
Hitler.
What do you think about Hitler?
That's what some people think.
Was he okay?
That's what some people think.
Should we get the jab?
Have you vaccinated your own children?
Take Bear's advice and calm down.
No, you take Bear's advice and be a good man.
I am a good man.
Be a good man.
And though it costs you to be a good man, it might cost you everything.
You might not like.
It might cost you everything to become one, but you can do it.
You might not like.
You can do it, please.
Russell.
Okay.
There's a lot to deal with here.
And we can see that Russell has very good.
Clearly, he reached a breaking point.
First, doing a mocking impression of Pierce to his face and then yelling at him for not being a good man, as Bear Grylls has dictated he should be.
Fucking hell.
When it comes to the question of Russell previously having been atheist and then Buddhist, he's missing a trick here.
See, the normal and frankly easiest thing to do is say, Ah, yes, I was lost, but now I'm found.
I thought I had the answers elsewhere, but actually the only answer is in Christ, right?
It's Really straightforward conversion stuff, and he should know by now that the right wing in the US eat that shit up.
Instead, he gets all pissy and offended because he was not prepared for even the most basic level of scrutiny being applied to him.
The other thing I need to mention is that a few days after this interview, Piers Morgan came out and said that Russell was, quote, inappropriately tactile during their interview.
Naturally, this generated a few more headlines, but it was something I had noticed throughout.
Now, I will say, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with being more tactile as a person.
I'm a hugger, for instance, right?
And as long as you're respecting everyone's boundaries and remaining within the realm of propriety, it's all fine.
And if in doubt, just don't do it, right?
But after Pierce mentioned that, I decided to go through the thing and count the instances where Russell touches Pierce.
It's of note that at no point does Pierce go to touch Russell.
So throughout the interview, Russell touches Pierce's arm, usually for three to five seconds or more.
A total of 25 times.
The interview is an hour 40 or thereabouts.
He also puts his hand on Piers' thigh at least four times that I could see.
So, yes, I am happy to call that inappropriate given the setting, but there's something I found really fascinating.
See, in the first 40 minutes when things are more cordial, Russell only touches Piers' arm once.
Within the last half an hour, when things get really tense between the two of them, I counted 16 arm fondlings.
That is, of course, an average of less than two minutes between Russell touching Piers' arm, and Russell getting more tactile seems to only come out in instances of conflict, which I personally think is real fucking weird.
Like, if you watch closely, you will note that Russell usually touches Piers' arm either to interrupt him or to really try and hammer home a point he's making, as though there's some part of his brain associating the physical connection with Piers somehow being persuaded into Russell's way of thinking.
Like, hey, if I touch him, he's going to agree with me.
And I'm just saying, were I one of the lawyers about to be dealing with the prosecution against Russell for various sex crimes, I might have some psychologists examining this interview.
Just a suggestion.
Anyway, Russell's little meltdown continues here.
These are basic facts.
You were an atheist.
You then became a Buddhist.
No, now you're a Christian.
Good.
They're not basic facts, they're information being tailored and collated.
Is it not true?
You are creating, attempting to create, using a collage of language.
You're the one who told us this.
Hey, I told us that.
You were.
You told us you were an atheist.
Israel's got the right to protect itself.
Yeah.
This is a genocide.
Don't take that COVID shot.
Take the COVID shot.
Listen.
But I'm happy to talk about that.
You're not.
I'm happy to talk about anything, but I would prefer to talk about.
But I only know you're an atheist because you've done that.
But I would prefer to talk about something, Piers.
Something.
We're talking about your profound belief in God.
And as a Christian.
No, we're not talking about my profound belief in God.
We're talking about the actuality of God.
And we're talking about the fact that you have been doing water carrying for Satan.
That's what we're talking about, Piers.
Who's Satan?
Water carrying.
The fallenness in this world.
The fallenness.
I guess if in doubt, get the Satan out.
It's acted as Russell's get out of jail free card for quite a while.
You know, when he goes off course on a point he's trying to make, he will often just go, and it's all satanic.
But this is the first time I've seen him directly accuse someone of working for Satan.
Piers is understandably confused and wanting answers, so let's let Russell finish.
And just note that Russell has his hand on Piers' arm for a full 40 seconds in this next clip.
I've been carrying water for Satan.
Satan is the epitomizing object of the realness of evil.
The evil is not some abstract moral idea.
Who's the Satan I've been carrying water for?
I suppose it's a, and I'm trying not, I don't mean to be mean.
Satan, I don't care.
It's the institutions of media power and how they interact and operate with government.
I suppose one could argue your initial position in COVID.
One could argue what went on with the mirror stuff.
One could argue what went on, say, with the.
Contentiousness around the terrifying and awful conflicts in the Middle East.
But more importantly, more importantly, right now, right now, that there's a chance for us to, even when I sort of take my own advice and more importantly, Bear Grylls' advice and think, right, just sit and chill, that you sort of revert to a kind of, he was an atheist, he was a Buddhist.
And I can't see that as a good faith inquiry.
I see it as an attempt to generate an outcome and to create a sort of a kind of hysteria, whether that's in this room with me or sort of more broadly among people.
Again, I really do think that this is just a case of Russell taking the questions about him very personally rather than, you know, answering them like a normal human being.
Because realistically, the fact that Russell was once atheist and once somewhat Buddhist isn't particularly interesting at all.
Many people who are now religious also used to be atheist, agnostic, or of a different religion.
Conversion stories happen all the time, the same way that many atheists were raised to be religious or used to be religious in some way.
It's not some great gotcha if an atheist used to be Christian and now isn't, and the same applies in reverse.
So, this isn't anything worth crying over, it's just that Russell is a hypersensitive little bitch.
As for the water carrying for Satan, well, Russell basically just described Pierce's entire career, and while I don't entirely disagree that Piers Morgan has mostly been a negative force in the world, I'm not sure he's at the level of being satanic.
From here, Pierce asks another perfectly valid question, and Russell tries to turn it around on him.
What if you get convicted and you go to prison?
And it's not very nice.
No, not that.
I'm talking racks.
You'll have to choose again.
Not that.
They'll be the white supremacists.
The Muslims.
Not that.
What will you do?
Join the white supremacists on one day and then grift for cigarettes with the Muslims on the next day?
How will you deal with the fact that in that moment, God has felt that's the right thing to happen to you?
Then, like, you know, drink the cup, man.
Drink the cup.
That's the deal we've got.
That's the deal we've got, peers.
And how will you feel on your judgment day?
How will you feel on your judgment day?
Because it's outside of time.
It's here now and it's forever.
I can't speak for Pierce, but I'd probably feel better about some hypothetical ethereal judgment day than the imminent prospect of imprisonment for sex crimes, you know?
Like, I think Russell felt pretty good about that little turnaround, and he probably shouldn't have.
Because also, what about Russell's judgment day?
Like, I know we as a society have decided that prison time is how one atones for crimes, right?
But I'm not sure that's how it works in a biblical sense.
Like, particularly when he's not going to be on trial for many of the other allegations against him.
So now Russell does a bit more inappropriate touching while continuing to be a condescending prick.
And there's a hair that has been bothering me for a long time.
Thankfully, it wasn't attached.
Otherwise, that would have been grooming.
Terrorism And Intellectual Dishonesty00:07:06
And what would that be in the ape world?
What I want to say to you is that I want to be better.
I want to be better.
And for me, the cost of that, who knows what that's going to be?
You've alluded to it already.
I want you to do it as well.
I know you can do it.
I want you to be a meaningful participant.
Feel that there's some reason that you're in this world, and it's not to generate conflict and it's not to generate, it's to participate in the creation of truth.
That was always your destiny, and I want you to do it.
Is your book going to generate profit?
Actually, I've already decided, and believe me, I don't want to do this, that no.
That if it does make any money, and the chances are that slim in this crazy world, that I will find a way.
In fact, me and you, if you are, I mean, like, you know, I want to give it to something that means something.
I've seen it all.
I've not seen it all, but I've seen enough.
I've seen a lot of.
It's Tucker Carlson's company doing it, right?
TuckerCarlsonBooks.com.
Tucker CarlsonBooks.com is an imprint of the company Skyhorse, which are a company that will publish stuff of canceled people.
That is true for anyone not in the know.
The same publishing company that Tucker Carlson is using, you know, is essentially a vanity publishing affair, are also the people that published RFK Jr.'s terrible book about Fauci.
And they're home to titles from Sean Spicer, Georgia Maloney, and Alan Dershowitz.
And they also have such wonderful titles as Bad Medicine How COVID Protocols Turned Hospitals Into Death Traps.
Great.
The Truth About Seed Oils, with 50 plus recipes, I might add.
So, you know, you get fear and recipes, so that's good.
Cancer is a Parasite.
Kill it with safe, over the counter, anti parasitic Fenbendazole.
Yeah, that one seems safe.
Cigars, a biography, which.
I didn't even realize Cigars was a person.
And also, Goodnight Little American, a patriotic children's book written by Rand Paul's wife.
Russell is in good company.
Note that he never actually finished his sentence about his book supposedly never making profit, you know, and him donating, blah, blah, blah.
Not that he desperately needs the money, as he is still one of the richest 0.01% of people on earth.
As for his points about Pierce, I do broadly agree that.
Piers Morgan, especially in his current iteration, basically does conflict porn for a living.
Like he gets a bunch of people yelling at each other on screen, and everyone walks away feeling like they won the exchange, and everyone watching ends up leaning into their own opinions just a little harder thanks to confirmation bias, while Piers Morgan himself makes a fortune off the fight.
It's a terrible show.
That said, the last person who can critique Pierce for this is Russell, who generates and profits from conflict on a daily basis.
And if anyone wants any insight on that, take a moment to go look at Russell's Rumble channel and the AI generated Hellscape.
That are his thumbnails to his videos.
Yikes.
So, next, Pierce gets into a bit of discussion around intellectual honesty.
There are very few people out in my world in the media who are prepared to be, in my view, intellectually honest.
What do you mean by that?
And why would that be?
For example, I don't think anyone who is intellectually honest can say they know what's happening in the Iran war right now with any confidence.
People who talk with absolute certainty and confidence about it.
They're not being intellectually honest because clearly it's extremely chaotic and unpredictable.
And no one can speak with any confidence about what's going to happen.
That's the intellectually honest position.
All right, got it.
Would you apply that to various areas of complexity, even if they're not the appalling?
You keep mentioning Israel guards.
Somehow I should be embarrassed about my evolution on that story.
But my position was very clear.
After the appalling terror attack by Hamas on October the 7th, where 1,200 Israelis were killed, 7,000 more were wounded.
Absolutely, Israel didn't just have a right to defend its people, but to have a moral duty to do it.
And then as it went on, I felt the scale of their response became utterly disproportionate.
And I feel that very strongly now.
That's my position.
By the way, a lot of people agree with me.
So I don't think it's an unusual evolution on that story.
Yes.
But if I asked you, for example, are Hamas a terrorist organization and was what they did that day an act of terrorism, what would you say?
This is where we get, I think, to an important point.
What would you say?
Is that what I would say?
Is Piers, do you not recognize, perhaps because of your stated aim to be at the heart of global debate, that actually it's a conflict generating dynamic?
And whilst we're talking about a conflict, literally where people are dying.
Of course, naturally.
For anyone wondering why Russell isn't answering yet another very basic question, it's because his audience are very much divided on it, as are other figures in the Far right media sphere, and Russell will make less money if he ever decides to hop off the fence.
He's done the same thing for two and a half years now, so I don't think it likely that he'll pick a side.
And it is kind of absurd because I am very much pro Palestine, and even I have no problem in saying that October 7th was a terrorist attack.
Like, we can examine the history of Israeli apartheid and the surrounding conditions that led up to that point as to why an insurgent organization would do such a thing.
Thing.
But yes, ultimately, it was a terrorist attack that killed innocent people.
And no, Pierce is not alone in believing that, hey, let's slaughter children in the tens of thousands is not a proportional response to that terrorist attack.
But in the final clip here, let's see if Pierce manages to nail Russell down on an answer.
My point is that my sense of what is right and wrong is taken from scripture, and my sense of how we should treat one another as individuals is guided by that.
And my sense of what should happen on a global stage is completely guided by that.
And it's one of submission and surrender.
So, was it an exoterrorist?
I really, well, is it?
Think of the questions you could ask about that.
I'm just asking a basic question about what Hamas did that day.
Do you know what we've learned?
There are no basic questions anymore.
There are.
That's the problem about being intellectually dishonest is that when you have an act of obvious, grotesque terrorism, you just say what it is.
You don't think, how's that going to play to normal people?
No, you don't think so.
How's that going to spin out on social media?
You just say, when 1,200 people are massacred like that, then it's a grotesque act of terrorism.
When babies are kidnapped, when Holocausts are kidnapped, you look at how it's a grotesque act of terrorism.
It is a grotesque act of terrorism.
A potential alternative narratives, and you try to say something.
You've answered it by not answering.
No, I, well, I. You have.
Haven't you?
It's wrong to kill people.
Okay.
Well, I'm glad we settled that.
Maybe now we can put the whole conflict to bed.
Killing People For Narratives00:01:10
Quick!
Somebody send messages to Israel and Palestine telling them it's wrong to kill people.
That'll fix it.
And of course, Russell speaks of looking at alternative narratives here, but he never actually does.
All he has ever done is rattle off some headlines and say, oh, wow, this conflict is terribly complicated and tense, and I pray for everyone involved, and I really hope it comes to a peaceful end soon.
And that is.
It for two and a half years.
It's why I don't cover his perspective on it very much because he deliberately doesn't fucking have one.
Oh, fuck this guy.
Anyway, that's the show, everybody.
If you want to support me and what I do, head to patreon.comslash onbrand where you can access additional content and a completely ad free version of the show.
If not, please subscribe and leave reviews and all that good shit.
Onbrand will be back real soon, but in the meantime, take care of yourselves and each other.
Thank you very much.
I love you.
Bye.
Bastards, aren't they?
I mean, you can't watch too much of this without realizing they're absolute bastards.
All right.
I'm going to finish now because I'm hungry and I want to eat something.