Both Tucker Carlson and Russell Brand represent a contradictory crossroads between the online podcast space and Christianity. Carlson has effectively been soft-peddling his Islamic sympathies in his pursuit of representing an anti-war faction on the right, yet while he has correctly pushed the narrative against Zionist influence, both in society and in the church, his credibility has become tarnished as he has also promoted outlandish narratives and effectively defended Candace Owens amidst her tabloidization of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Russell Brand was early to the trend of celebrity conversions, which was always going to be a mixed bag. He has charisma and can communicate even Christian ideas convincingly; however, he has also peddled new age scams, universalism, and remains compromised on homosexuality—all while claiming Christ.
Russell Brand has collaborated with Carlson to publish his forthcoming book, How to Become a Christian in Seven Days, which is a semi-autobiographical account of Brand’s “apostasy from ‘demonic Hollywood’ and radical conversion to Christianity against a backdrop of false allegations, his son’s heart surgery, and truly jaw-dropping spiritual warfare.” The book is available for preorder at a hefty price of $30.75.
This made their recent interview as much a promotion of the book as it was an interview. Throughout the interview, Brand talks as if he is operating on a higher level, but it is very much sophistry dressed in the regurgitation of certain words, like his brief discussion on prayer and quantum mechanics. He overloads the audience with hundred-dollar words when it is really just psycho-babble. The interview begins with Brand offering a prayer and reading Daniel, but apart from what might be compelling speech, he lacks a biblical understanding of human nature and he will proceed to make numerous references to conspiracies, about Kirk, Trump, and even himself.
Brand of Theology
One of the viral clips of the interview comes around the thirty-six-minute mark wherein Brand combines conspiracy culture with toleration of transgenderism.
Lone gunman. And whenever there’s a lone gunman, just some crackpot. Hey, these crackpots, I noticed that a lot of the time they do stuff that really benefits the most powerful interest in the world. I tell you what, the most powerful should start using these lone gunmen because you know there’s a natural alliance. It’s a good thing. It’s like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s…[and] the Olympics and satanic festivals where you mock Christian imagery. The whole thing should get together and if you find people that are prominent and outspoken and willing to risk their lives, probably what you should do is shoot them dead and then blame like something that will work in the culture like, I don’t know, trans people—that wouldn’t work.
Whether this is a joke or not is largely irrelevant, since Brand seems to think that social divisions in society are caused by the Powerful manipulating the masses. He seems to miss the blatant fact that the rise in the Rainbow Jihad is itself a result of social engineering by “powerful” interests. That these trans-shooters exist is not because the Powerful recruit them, but rather create the environment where the youth are drugged on SSRI medication which then causes suicidal tendencies that manifest in shootings. None of the systemic problems should absolve the individual of their depravity, and transvestites should be viewed with heightened scrutiny with the rising trend in violence they have exhibited. Brand is functionally arguing that they as a group are being scapegoated.
At the fifty-six minute mark, Brand would later allude to Kirk being assassinated because “they” had no blackmail on him, in a point about Christian living removing the means of extortion. He could be joking, but he is on a platform that has indulged these statements with seriousness, since Carlson shilled for Joe Kent, who was more than likely leaking information to Candace Owens, the number one purveyor of Kirk assassination conspiracies.
Even if he is doing a bit, Brand, returning to a more serious form, proceeds to sound no different than the woke, Side B theologians:
Cuz you know our Lord, he would have been down with a trans, down with a homeless, down with a fentanyl, down with a junkies.
The moments in Scripture where Christ interacted with the lowest of humans should be considered anomalous rather than normative, and He did so without compromise. Also to casually use the phrase “down with” suggests affirmation rather than Christ seeking out such lowly as a physician seeks out the sick. This proceeds into a point about evangelizing to queers with a rebuke of worshiping sex, which while it might sound ideal, he then attempts to sublimate erotic love into Christianity.
There is a supreme intimacy with God. He actually wants to be inside you right now. Look at the carnality. He’s incarnate. We eat his flesh and blood. As well as the agape love, there’s eros love in that. We are his bride. It’s there. It’s a very powerful energy, the sexual energy, and I definitely misused it extensively by worshiping it and identifying with it. So, when I’m talking to people about problems around identity and sexuality, even though I’ve never had the challenge of same-sex attraction, my certainty is that we shouldn’t be sex should not be our god, that love must be first.
While there is language of consummation pertaining to the Church being the bride of Christ, the term eros should not be used when agape or philia would be more appropriate since the love Christ shows the bride is not sexual. Even seeker-sensitive churches might rightly emphasize the agape love rather than the eros love. Whether it is The Gospel Coalition or Russell Brand, there is no need to be overly graphic in comparing Christianity to marital sex.
He then proceeds to employ the “don’t judge” verse incorrectly, which very much corresponds to his bad political understanding. In all this, Brand sounds like the liberal pastor of a few years ago, just mixing in conspiracy culture to justify overlooking problems directly caused by certain degenerate lifestyles.
Brand of Politics
Brand uses the interview to pitch the idea of himself becoming Mayor of London, which ultimately reveals that he has zero understanding of politics or even how society functions, yet people listen to him. His bad ideas are sprinkled throughout the interview, much like his bad theology. Early on, he endorses democracy as ideal when practiced efficiently, while being a British man supporting Ghandi’s affirmation that each village in India should be “fully autonomous.” The Founding Fathers of America were very adamant against democracy for various reasons, referring heavily to historical precedent to substantiate their arguments.
Brand has a fundamental misunderstanding of how groups operate in society, taking up for Occupy Wall Street, which was nothing more than a pseudo-communist movement that was a precursor to ANTIFA.
[Dave Smith] said that 2008 and the Occupy movement was a kind of unique solidarity when it comes to the typical political taxonomies in your country and mine. People transcended that and recognized, hold on a minute, it’s financial institutions that are to blame for this. Why don’t we start targeting them? That was the advent of identity policy. Let’s have a race war.
Citing Libertarian Dave Smith, Brand argues that the Powerful initiated identity politics as a means to diffuse tensions against the financial institutions following the 2008 crisis. All politics is inherently identity politics and always has been, but the notion that “they” ignited racial tensions is ridiculous since these racial tensions had been cyclically recurrent throughout American history. The black riots of the 1960’s were the exact same as the LA Riots in the 90’s, which led to the acquittal of OJ Simpson for murdering his white wife. This pattern resumed in of the era social media with the likes of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray. There is nothing new under the sun.
Brand seems deluded enough to believe that the races would get along just fine if they were not manipulated by the powerful. The migrant rape gangs are not terrorizing white women in Britain because the elites had to manipulate them into committing rape; they rape because that is their culture. They were brought into Britain because they would dispossess the British. Subsequently, the judicial system allows their third-world behavior to occur unabated as a means of punishing the British. The same happens in America with random, senseless murders committed by black career criminals. Soros might fund district attorneys and mayors, but Soros is not the man voting them into office nor is he making criminals commit crime. This is called Anarcho-Tyranny, where the State weaponizes lawlessness against its people as a matter of policy.
Overall, he articulates his vision of a multicultural democracy where everything is enacted via direct popular sovereignty.
Open-source direct democracy where you vote for if you want cameras or this kind of policing or that kind of policing. Is it Facebook or is it knife crime? What do you care about? You’re not stupid. You’re not an idiot. And indeed, it is possible to transcend this hysterical, endless conflict between Muslims in the UK, gay people versus straight is pointless.
Of the many problems with this idiocy is the presupposition that he believes all peoples are the same when their interests are diametrically opposed. The foreigners are unlikely to be prosecuted for Facebook posts calling out migrant rape. The British people did not vote for Middle East North African immigration. In fact, they voted the opposite only for the Tories to betray them. The migrants obviously support immigration because it creates a larger ethnic bloc which in turn receives political patronage that comes at the expense of whites. Their presence is the problem. On the most salient of issues, there is irreconcilable opposition.
The same trend happens in America where one demographic pays taxes which then gets funneled to other groups. Likewise, immigrant groups often subsist off of the welfare state or outright defraud it. This form of socialism ought to be called Racial Wealth Redistribution. Fundamentally, there is no reconciling a society where one group contributes and the other takes, yet Brand seems delusional to think that London, which is 60-40 non-British, will find his brand of politics appealing.
The icing on the cake is that he insinuates that Gays vs. Straights is a hysterical conflict. To oppose the Rainbow Jihad is likened to denying their “existence” as humans. There is no reconciling Christian orthodoxy with the gay agenda that frames itself as being in pursuit of “human rights.” The language of human rights justifies opposition to their ideas as being against humanity, which can easily lend itself to rationalizing violence against opposition, like Charlie Kirk.
Much of this language echoes talking points that have grown commonplace on the so-called “Retard Right” which consists of Fuentes, Sneako, Candace Owens, and increasingly Tucker Carlson. One of their core ideas is that Christians and Muslims should unite against the Jews or Zionism, but that is where the any agreements end. They fail to realize that the political glue which binds the leftist coalition is hostility towards whites, so any alliance with Muslims will invariably fail or prove contrary to the interest of white evangelicals. It is one thing to oppose Zionism, but quite another to be so antizionist that one becomes functionally anti-white.
Conspiratard Christianity
This phenomenon brought about by the likes of Carlson and Brand has earned the name Conspiratard Christianity, which denotes retarded conspiracy culture being fused with Christianity. The distinctives of this movement are a purveyance of easily falsifiable conspiracies, easy believism, and antinomianism. Brand clearly demonstrates an antinomian acceptance of homosexuality and his argument that trannies are being scapegoated for their violence. As there is a vibe shift in the culture, Easy Believism will become more prevalent with many bad actors wearing Christianity as a skinsuit. This is also seen in the reformed e-thot debate. In particular, Brand has a rape trial coming up, and while it is unjust to prosecute him for he-said-she-said accusations from so long ago, he should refrain from making himself a poster child for Christianity and writing books, instead choosing to lead a quiet life. Regarding the conspiracies, the embrace of conspiracies by certain elements of the online discourse has been despicable. Many will blame the Trump Administration for failing to go after the Left over the Kirk assassination when retarded commentators like Candace Owens were spreading lies before the body was buried.
By embracing the likes of Russell Brand, not only does Tucker discredit himself, but ultimately paints antizionism as an unhinged and untrustworthy political faction for the conservative movement, which is counterintuitive for a movement that is truly America First.
Powered by RedCircle
One Response
Literally everyone is a paid actor representing exactly what they are paid for. If they pretend to be your ally while acting horrendously stupid, it is because that was the script until the job is done. Never take any of these clowns seriously.