Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

[Freya Stewart]

I listened to the interview on Spotify and during the introduction to the interview Tucker said:

So that explains the impatience and interruptions you noted.

Thanks @Jenn. I did also watch Tucker's prelude to the interview. I just didn't care for his explanation. My disappointment stemmed from his furthering American stereotypes such as impatience, arrogance, and rudeness. Since he is somewhat of a representative of conservative America to the world at this point I wish that he had not jumped to his initial conclusion about Putin's communication style. I do think he may have been pretty nervous about this interview from his initial video announcing the meeting from Moscow. Perhaps his fear or nervousness explains what I thought was out of character behavior from him during the interview.

 

[Alejo]

What Tucker might have been thinking about when he said that he's never heard a single leader say 'I don't know' is that there probably hasn't been too many leaders who agreed to an interview without a condition of sticking to a pre-approved set of questions. Some leaders need their tele-prompters organised in advance of the interview

This is true, there is an honest "I don't know" that is sincere and is a respectful answer, an admission of humility but not of ignorance of lack of care, rather a careful consideration.

And then there's the "I don't know" that is more of a, "I actually do not care about what you're asking me about" which no one in the West does, mostly because they're dependent on the image they sold to the public of being well informed and compassionate and wise, so they always have to have an answer prepared.

Which, is a huge difference, Putin sat there to discuss, in the West, you get interviews where the interviewee simply is prompted to repeat soundbites and campaign slogans or the party line.

That's my take at least.

 

[Alejo]

And also, that visit to Russia seems to have made a few ripples in Tucker himself, he just posted this episode on Ukraine and you can watch the first minute or two to see it.

He touches upon the fact that it is impossible to win in Ukraine, no matter the amount of money being sent, how suicidal it is for Europe and the US to carry this on, but also how this legislation to send money to Ukraine, is designed to handcuff the next president into not being able to do anything different, I suppose they expect to lose the next election.

Worth the watch, and I think it either something changed in Tucker after meeting Putin, or some impression was made on him that still lingers, or maybe I am wrong.

Here it is.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757159485162799334

 

[Steph_rivers]

He touches upon the fact that it is impossible to win in Ukraine, no matter the amount of money being sent, how suicidal it is for Europe and the US to carry this on, but also how this legislation to send money to Ukraine, is designed to handcuff the next president into not being able to do anything different, I suppose they expect to lose the next election.

Worth the watch, and I think it either something changed in Tucker after meeting Putin, or some impression was made on him that still lingers, or maybe I am wrong.

What this is starting to appear like to me thanks to this interview, is that the PTB (The true PTB) want the Semitic race to kill itself
(obviously we know that, but it's starting to show itself how). 400,000 dead Ukrainians? I'm assuming the western psychopaths were WANTING Russia to fight them US style, and genocide the entire area with carpet bombs then bring in the infantry, giving NATO an excuse to turn the world on Russia. Seems to me that the Semitics from Russia to the middle east always get the short end of the stick and end up being the ones who die on a massive scale whether evil or not as long as many of them die as possible, I mean look at WWII.

On another note, Youtube is doing MAJOR damage control regarding the Putin interview. Despite 15 million views in 4 days, it's below at least 6 other videos (News networks) in a search query. All news outlets are on full throttle trying to twist anything they can. What's amazing is all the comments to these videos calling them out as liars. I'm surprised the comments in these videos are even enabled. I've never seen such unified consensus from all comments on all channels. Have we ever had human consciousness this aware of the state of global affairs in human history, despite the lies and propaganda? I wonder.

 

[Jones]

Thanks @Jenn. I did also watch Tucker's prelude to the interview. I just didn't care for his explanation. My disappointment stemmed from his furthering American stereotypes such as impatience, arrogance, and rudeness. Since he is somewhat of a representative of conservative America to the world at this point I wish that he had not jumped to his initial conclusion about Putin's communication style. I do think he may have been pretty nervous about this interview from his initial video announcing the meeting from Moscow. Perhaps his fear or nervousness explains what I thought was out of character behavior from him during the interview.

I think Tucker is a work in progress and can be mistaken. I don't think he'd doubt that, but I don't know that for sure. I typed this from his post interview talk:

I’ve never heard a leader of anything, whether it’s a country or a company or a soccer team, ever in my life, in a lifespan interviewing people, I’ve never heard a single one of them say ‘you know, I don’t know the answer, it’s very complicated, I haven’t figured it out'. I’ve never heard anybody say that and to me that is the pure sign of wisdom because wisdom grows from humility, wisdom grows from the recognition that you are not God. In the United States we had a period where we were sort of having this debate about are some religions good and some religions bad. I’ll tell you my view on it and it’s a hardened view, it’s a sincere view. I divide the world not between not Muslim, Christian, Jew and Buddhist, I divide the world between people who believe they’re God and people who know they are not. The only people I trust are in the second category because that is the beginning of wisdom. When you know you are not God, that you cannot affect every change that you want, you can’t forsee the future, that you’re not omnipotent, then you are much more likely to make good decisions, wise humane decisions. By contrast, when you believe you have the power to shape the world and other people as we were hearing this morning through biohacking. When you think you can create a better human being through technology, you’re very dangerous because you don’t understand your own limits and you will get a lot of people killed when you have those false beliefs in my opinion.

So his prelude to the interview wasn't so humble, and maybe not so wise - he didn't seem to be open to the possibility that maybe he didn't know everything he needed to for the interview. Putin schooled him on that! But he does at least seem to be able to recognise an ideal beyond his own current limitations by the looks of it even though some of his statements in the above quote are a little black and white - for example, someone who recognises that they are not God may not be inherently trustworthy as well. They may still be ignorant and/or deceptive or think they're the devil or a fluffy or something else!

 

[Mililea]

The only thing I didn't like was at the every end, where Tucker says that he's never heard a single leader say they don't have an answer to a question, that they simply don't know something (paraphrasing). Except that, just the other day, Putin DID say that twice or three times, if I remember correctly!

Yes, he didn´t mention Putin at that point of the interview, but he also said, that it is a good thing when leaders say "I don´t know" because they are "not god" and can know everything. So maybe he didn´t want to say "but Putin SAID it and I liked that" in front of an audience like that but if people watch him saying that and have seen his Putin interview, they know it. I think he only was diplomatic. Only guessing here.
But I think for him it is not easy at the moment what to say and what not. And I also think the interview and all following was an eye-opener for him.

 

[Evan]

Have we ever had human consciousness this aware of the state of global affairs in human history, despite the lies and propaganda? I wonder.

Think whole situation with the literally over a billion people having seen this, and the great reorientation that’s occurring makes me look at the Cs many remarks about networking from an entirely next level perspective. Networking on this forum has been what I’ve taken it to mean, but now we’re looking at networking among all of humanity, and that’s deeply encouraging. We’re talking about scale-tipping levels of awareness!

 

[WhiteMountain]

BORIS JOHNSON: Putin's interview was straight out of Hitler's playbook

When Tucker Carlson went to the Kremlin he had a function well known to history. He was to be the stooge of the tyrant, the dictaphone to the dictator and a traitor to journalism.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Boris represents the general British view. I took the step to test the waters with some liberal friends and essentially people are getting triggered and can't deal with the cognitive dissonance.

I'm particularly worried about the British v Russia divide as our Island is quite small compared to the collosal Russian landmass and for some weird reason people don't appreciate the existential threat we face by continually poking the bear.

I mean, aren't we lucky that we actually have a rational leader in Russia? Imagine some more crazy person succeeded Putin and wasn't essentially scared to fight directly with Nato... I mean, that'll be the end of modern civilization. I don't think they will break Russia up the way they think... at worst, it'll just end up in a war which is unwinnable. At best it ends up in some sort of stalemate in a constant state of tension.

You really have to wonder about the intelligence of a man comparing Putin to Hitler, who is literally delivering and unending supply of arms to people who literally worship Stephan Bandera and the Nazis!!! I mean you could not make this stuff up if you tried.

Everyone is lucky Putin is in there. If Medvedev was president we would already have tactical nukes being detonated all over Eastern Europe. If there is any criticism among Putin in Russia, it seems to come more from the Russians who are upset that he is being too soft on Ukraine.

 

[iamthatis]

Putin thinks we can now genetically engineer people?

Unfortunately, it sure looks like it. That's what the original covid virus was designed to do - mRNA technology for increased obedience.

Woah, that was the bombshell for me. Super soldiers? Are any operating in the battlefield?

Also quite likely. There was something very evil going in the Ukraine biolabs, which sounds a lot like genetically engineering a psychopathic army.

Big Pharma tested 'secret bioweapon targeting Slavic DNA in Mariupol, Ukraine', video tour shows biowarfare laboratory

It is no surprise the city of Mariupol became the destination of choice for Big Pharma's tests on psychiatric ward patients as such testing is forbidden in Western countries, experts told Sputnik. Major Western pharmaceutical companies tested...

www.sott.net

He said that the accidental discovery of the documents in a basement of a building re-captured by Russian forces in Mariupol is "just the beginning of a trail of evidence that will most likely lead through the dark and misery-filled world between 2008 to 2019 when Ukrainians and Russians were used as human experiments to explore just how malevolent, hysterical, paranoid, delusional, and psychotic the human person can be manipulated, medicated, and surgically altered into being."


The ex-State Department counterterrorism analyst suggested that the purpose of the tests "was to construct exactly the types of mercenaries or soldiers who would torture women and children sadistically, cut out body organs from friends, and wage a war of terror without any of the hesitations of morality, religion, social custom, or mystical taboos clouding the darkened mind of the human experiments listed in these documents."


Comment: For chilling insight into how experimental vaccines can warp one's behaviour, see: RNA Vaccines, Obedience and Eugenics


When asked why Mariupol was picked for the tests, Bennett said it was "the perfect place to conduct this medical experimentalizing because people in the city area could be easily trapped, captured, imprisoned, and experimented on with the cries of terror and screams of pain at the suffering of these experiments being hidden in the deep basements underground."

Like the Uruk-hai of Saruman.

 

[WhiteMountain]

Thanks @Jenn. I did also watch Tucker's prelude to the interview. I just didn't care for his explanation. My disappointment stemmed from his furthering American stereotypes such as impatience, arrogance, and rudeness. Since he is somewhat of a representative of conservative America to the world at this point I wish that he had not jumped to his initial conclusion about Putin's communication style. I do think he may have been pretty nervous about this interview from his initial video announcing the meeting from Moscow. Perhaps his fear or nervousness explains what I thought was out of character behavior from him during the interview.

Well I think the problem here is this is an interview for an American audience. I absolutely love long form interviews. I know people who are literally on IQ-lowering Tiktok and are addicted to it. One commented how much more "truth" they found on Tiktok, and I was like "how much truth can you actually digest in a few minutes?" Unfortunately that is his target audience, and I was highly worried during that 30 minute stretch that he would lose a lot of Americans, and Tucker was probably thinking the same thing during the interview and while taping that intro basically to warn Americans to have patience and stick around.

Alexander Mercouris basically stated the same thing after the interview on an episode of the Duran.

What really concerned me was the answer that Tucker gave at the "World Government Summit." He replied he DID ask him the question, but he did not follow up with the answer to the question. It is pretty clear to me in some sense that the Russian understanding of the American culture is almost as lacking as the reverse in terms of thinking in those terms. It is just two different mentalities, which to some extent better explains why Russia really is not doing as good in the propaganda war. Putin would have been well served to have an American like Scott Ritter come in and help him prepare some talking points that would stick in the minds of Americans, so that anyone watching the interview when asked like Tucker did above COULD concisely answer why Russia invaded. You could still provide all the background but organize the points in such a way that the talking points stick in people's minds (marketing firms do this all the time in the west, and they are VERY good at what they do).

The two most compelling reasons, from an American perspective, would have been to bring up #1 - Americans were literally about to put nuclear capable missiles (that could be loaded in the middle of the night on Russia's borders) in the Ukraine, and Zelensky literally said he would develop nukes while NATO countries APPLAUDED him for it DAYS before the invasion! Then you just make the Cuban Missile Crisis analogy that every American understands. Then you can link it to the stories he gave on WHY he had reason to fear those American missiles.

Then #2 (arguably the best argument) - Russia signed a legally binding treaty with the Donbass, France, Germany and Ukraine, and Russia was a GUARANTOR of that agreement. What do you think guarantor means? It means you are somewhat obligated to help ENFORCE it if someone violates it, as Zelensky openly did - both in his words and by bombing the crap out of the Donbass. So again the analogy, just as if Britain was attacked by some country, the US would be asked under Article 5 to provide military assistance, Russia was similar obliged as guarantor to help the Donbass when Zelensky broke the treaty and started an unprovoked attack. These points would both be well understood because they tie to realities people in the US have been taught to understand as the real muscle behind the NATO security umbrella; conversely it is hard to talk about local loyalties to the region etc in a history region to a country that is largely a melting pot of people where people probably feel more loyalty to their football teams than ethnic heritages :).

That being said, I am not even sure the American people was the target audience. One person that used to be in intelligence said the real audience was political and business leaders of the world, since they hold a lot of the power. Talking points are less important to them and they have a greater attention span. The other thing this individual said is Tucker was prospectively invited by the Kremlin to do the interview several weeks ago, and a secondary purpose was to deliver Tucker files, not just on Russian history, but evidence elections were stolen and other crimes and the WHO (including the names no one has heard before) responsible which could be verified. Putin said it himself, if we presented the information on Nordstream etc no one would believe us. But if they gave the information to Tucker, and he could validate it.... That would be interesting. Might then be an interesting next couple of weeks if that is the case :)

 

[Alejo]

Everyone is lucky Putin is in there. If Medvedev was president we would already have tactical nukes being detonated all over Eastern Europe. If there is any criticism among Putin in Russia, it seems to come more from the Russians who are upset that he is being too soft on Ukraine.

I'm not sure this is the case, I think Medvedev does have an entirely different temper than Putin, and I think he can be a bit more direct and less diplomatic, but despite being strong leadership, I think that Russia's decisions are made by committee, a group of wise advisers.

I'm not sure Russia has any interest in nuking easter Europe, they've been always clear about wanting close ties with them, bombing their enemies into oblivion is more Washington's style.

 

[WhiteMountain]

I'm not sure this is the case, I think Medvedev does have an entirely different temper than Putin, and I think he can be a bit more direct and less diplomatic, but despite being strong leadership, I think that Russia's decisions are made by committee, a group of wise advisers.

I'm not sure Russia has any interest in nuking easter Europe, they've been always clear about wanting close ties with them, bombing their enemies into oblivion is more Washington's style.

Yes, but remember some of those wise advisers do believe in a policy of de-escalation by escalation. You can see this in some of the the public discussions. If you detonate a nuke somewhere, like near an Azov stronghold near Lviv, that might actually get the West's and the mind numbed public's attention as to how dangerous a situation this is, and maybe even the figure heads in Kiev, wondering if they are next, gain the courage to break the Western ties that bind them. This is not entirely a position without merit. I even wonder this myself. This might be the only language the West understands, and to be honest I would not be shocked if they did at some point over the next several months detonate a low yield tactical nuke if NATO troops enter Western Ukraine to allow more Ukranian troops to the front lines, as is the rumor now.

After a Cuban missile crisis like moment, maybe they come to their senses (then again Biden is not Kennedy...), and then perhaps no more Russians have to die. Even though Putin is doing his best to keep losses to a minimum, many of their military leaders probably cannot stomach the losses that are happening now knowing they could just end this with enough nuclear or even hyperbaric bombs. I still think Putin's position is wiser, but that is not entirely obvious by the way the West behaves.

 

[Chaze]

We’ve already concluded that Putin completely outclassed Tucker in his interview. But after reexamining it further, it’s actually very disappointing just how woefully unprepared and deliberately disingenuous Carlson was with some of his questions. He tried to bait Putin a few times actually with deceptively framed questions.

But Putin’s rebuttals were as close to perfect as you can get when you’re doing this off the cuff.

For example, look at this query by Carlson:

“On February 24, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States through NATO might initiate a quote, “surprise attack on our country”. And to American ears that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?”

Now unless I’ve accidentally overlooked it, nowhere in Putin’s address on Feb. 24, 2022 did he say this. (The transcript for this address can be read here.) Carlson literally made this statement up ex nihilio. But why?

Putin’s response was nothing short of masterful:

“It's not that the United States was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia. I didn't say so.
Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?”

This was a unique point in the interview because it displayed Putin’s raw talent to neutralize any pernicious intentions (whether intentional or not) and showed that it was he who was in command of the dialogue.

But Carlson’s repetitive interruptions and attempts to redirect Putin’s train of thought didn’t pan out very well him. Tucker even had the audacity just a little while later to make reference to his initial deceptively constructed question:

“… many nations feel frustrated by their re-drawn borders after the wars of the 20th century, and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you mention, but the fact is that you didn’t make this case in public until two years ago in February, and in the case that you made, which I read today, you explain at great length that you thought a physical threat from the West and NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that’s what got you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you said?”

What was the purpose of this? What does Tucker get out of baiting him? Maybe he really was just trying to save face for his audience? It’s like he was trying too hard to show that he wasn’t going to shill for Putin, all the while doing everything he could to parade all the stereotypes of the Western man.

Regardless, Putin didn’t bite and instead politely insulted him:

“ I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of an interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning: “Are we going to have a serious talk or a show?” You said — a serious talk. So bear with me please.”

And then proceeded to show that there are levels to this— that he was quite a few steps higher up on the ladder. That’s why his lengthy parts of the “serious conversation” using factual historical context was absolutely necessary! (Putin clearly possesses the de rigueur of his ancestors.)

I still like Tucker. I still think that he is an excellent journalist—probably one of my favorites. But a very important lesson I gleaned from this interview, particularly from Tucker, is that a lot of us Westerners have GOT to grow up and shed this sense of entitlement. It’s more ingrained into us than a lot of us are aware of, and we don’t really recognize it until we’re challenged to do so. And when staring into the eyes of the “Russian Soul”—figuratively speaking—and taking the time to genuinely try and understand it… It’s awe-inspiring.

 

[loreta]

Personally, I think the interview was good, aimed at an American audience. The questions that seem a bit silly are questions that the general public is asking, an opportunity for Putin to set the record straight. And I think that before an interview, the participants look at the questions that will be asked. There's a certain amount of control, I think. What I also liked about this interview was that Carlson allowed Putin to speak at length. The interviewer's silence or restraint is as important as the questions he asks.

 

[Ben]

Putin would have been well served to have an American like Scott Ritter come in and help him prepare some talking points that would stick in the minds of Americans, so that anyone watching the interview when asked like Tucker did above COULD concisely answer why Russia invaded. You could still provide all the background but organize the points in such a way that the talking points stick in people's minds (marketing firms do this all the time in the west, and they are VERY good at what they do).

If the points he made didn't stick in someone's mind already, I don't know what would. Also, Scott addressed this directly himself here:

Tucker Madness is Good for America

The former Fox News talk show host-turned independent media phenomenon, Tucker Carlson, is in Moscow, where he has committed the mortal sin of interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin. The interview is scheduled to air at 6 pm eastern time on Thursday, February 8. Let there be no...

www.scottritterextra.com

Would I have loved to have the opportunity that has been given to Tucker Carlson?

Hell, yes.

Am I upset that he got this interview, and I did not?

To be honest, I was—more than a little.

But that’s because I’m only human, and jealousy is very much a human trait that resides inside me as much as anyone else.

But I’m over it.

Let’s be honest—I’m an expert, a historian.

I’m not your classic journalist.

He goes on to explain how this interview was an opportunity to do something different and reach a wider audience. People who would have been turned off by a detailed historical discussion and need a different kind of journalistic style to get through to them.

In short, Tucker’s interview will be everything that any interview I might have conducted would not have been. It will be a game-changing moment, a historical event. It will shake Russophobia in America to its core and, in doing so, hopefully set in motion the grounds for a broader discussion of US-Russian relations that could set America on a trajectory away from conflict, helping eliminate the possibility of a nuclear war.

In the end, we got both approaches because Putin saw the opportunity to use an open ended, no time limits, format to get his preliminary history lesson across.