Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

I watch the whole Tucker, Putin, interview and I olny can say it probably was one of the better interview i ever seen of Putin and Mr. Carlson. I just want to remark two points on the interview would seem very interesting from my perspective.

#1 - Biden would be “very wounded” for the 2024 presidential election of United States thanks to this interview.

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”• “You have to be an idiot to think that. Russia is too big already. It’s the biggest landmass in the world. They only have 150,000,000 people.”• They’ve Got more than enough natural resources. They’re swimming in natural resources. They don’t have enough people, in their view. So, the idea that they want to take over Poland, why would you want to do that? They just want secure borders.”
 
I also loved how no matter how hard, nor how many times Tucker tried to focus the conversation on February 2022, and what made him “start the war”, Putin kept going back to 2014. He made it clear that February 2022 was simply a moment in an ongoing war, not the beginning of the war. The west has been pushing this date into the people’s heads so hard and for so long, that the circumstances have been lost to the collective mind. I think Putin successfully managed to undo this to a great extent insofar as reorienting the way this whole debacle unfolded in the eyes of the public: February 24, 2022 is just the date that a new chapter began. This war has actually been going on for 10 (or 18 if you start at 2008) years! The world needs to realize this. It isn’t nor was it ever a Russian war of aggression.
 
I got an email from the Tucker Carlson network about 'exclusive behind the scenes footage" after the interview, but you need to be a subscriber to view it. Anybody here subscribe?

"The cameras kept rolling after the Vladimir Putin interview ended, and that exclusive, behind-the-scenes footage is available now.

Click the image below to watch Tucker's immediate, unfiltered reaction from inside the Kremlin to his hours-long discussion with the Russian President."

After the interview
 
At the very least, the interview is a platform that allows for Americans, that would not otherwise take the time to listen to Putin, to hear the world situation from the Russian perspective. Important. Tucker is extremely popular with conservative America. Conservative Americans that only know their own viewpoint, what is good for America is right. Always fighting for Liberty. I am doubtful they will truly hear that Russia is not the enemy they are made out to be. Conservative Americans, I know, believe the
propaganda of China wants to invade us.

Tucker does frustrate me with also upholding that point of view, how can America be wrong we stand for Freedom? Send American troops ? Why when you can fight through proxy forces. Why in an election year? Why should Russia agree to end the war by admitting that NATO is right. Meaning this war can end if NATO keeps the upper hand. It is near the end of the interview. It is the belief in American hegemony coming through which was also referred to in the discussion of the dollar.

He pushes with questions that might make sense if Putin could trust the US. Who in their right mind would? Talk to Biden or the corrupt and evil PTB running this country? What a joke. Putin’s polite and intelligent demeanor is always admirable.
 
I got an email from the Tucker Carlson network about 'exclusive behind the scenes footage" after the interview, but you need to be a subscriber to view it. Anybody here subscribe?

"The cameras kept rolling after the Vladimir Putin interview ended, and that exclusive, behind-the-scenes footage is available now.

Click the image below to watch Tucker's immediate, unfiltered reaction from inside the Kremlin to his hours-long discussion with the Russian President."

After the interview
Bluegazer just posted some of it above: Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies
 
Was Hong Kong better of when the British were there?, absolutely! Ask my friend who moved there in 2007 (when I was considering joining him) who decided to move out in 2019 despite setting up his operations there. He told me a lot of stuff that was happening behind the scenes that never made it to the press, including the fact they had Chinese agents literally fomenting violence in the protests to justify the crackdown. And this was not some guy who is anti-China at all, at least before that event. Most of his business deals with Chinese companies. He knows it well. He was the first who told me China is not what you expect before I visited there.

What self determination in the people of Hong Kong have now? The people literally have no say. Only Chinese imposed leaders are allowed to govern. At least under the British they had local elections. They had their own laws. Would it be better that it was independent?, absolutely! But I would prefer what they had before versus the clamp down the Chinese pushed on them in 2019. Even when I was there in 2014 the people were very unhappy with Chinese rule and there were non violent protests. There was nothing like that in 2007, and inflation was noticeably much higher in 2014.

Ask the Taiwanese what they want as well. They just had an election that showed the will of the people, and I knew two people living there now (including the friend who used to live in Hong Kong) and trust me, both would get out ASAP if China took over. One of them told me they literally have the TSMC factories set to be blown up internally if China takes over - that is how much they do not want to come under the authoritarian rule of the Chinese. And neither like the policies of the West either. One even commented to me he did agree with the way Xi was handling the cultural issues and how stupid the woke stuff had gotten. But you can admire the latter and recognize that there are also severe problems with basic freedoms in the same country.

I don't get this idea that just because the US is evil, everyone who is opposing them has to be good. I would not want to live in either the US or China (but if I had to chose, I would chose the US even though I left the US, because I value freedom of speech and control over my own life, and the US is still better than China, if but barely now...). Both are horrible models. Russia would be better than both. Putin I like. Xi I cannot stand. His predecessor Hu Jintao was much better, and the country was actually progressing towards more freedom under him.

I don't see how bringing the WEF into this not relevant either. The Klaus Schwab openly praises the Chinese model. WEF wants "stakeholder capitalism" which is basically the state (through the corporations) controlling and managing all the resources of the people, just like is done in China. They want to clamp down on free speech, just like behind the great firewall of China.

I support the BRICS movement because the US dollar system needs to be crushed. I also agree, that the US deserves some massive karmic payback. That being said, I want a global order that is multpolar with no more globalist powers doing any bullying and each country left alone to pursue their own interests - the interests of their people. And I very much hope my suspicions are wrong on this.

Let me give you an idea of how decentralization can work. Say you have a case of corruption. You have standing grand juries that any person, not just a prosecutor, can bring evidence to. They then vote on an ordered list of all the cases that should be prosecuted with the most heinous crimes at the top, with the ability to hire independent attorneys to prosecute if state attorneys are not willing. That way the most violent crimes are prosecuted first and victimless crimes do not make the threshold.

What happens now if a corrupt official wants to go after someone like Assange. It is rubber stamped by a corrupt prosecutor, and then a judge. If you take it through the grand jury process above (using cryptographically secure selection, not the current "Magic Wheel" used in the US to profile the pool to assure a conviction) the people would not indict (a proper grand jury system with adversarial roles so you cannot "indict a ham sandwich"). Even if they chose to indict, the severity of his "crime" would be so down the ordered choice priority list it would never be tried. So you prevent normal people from being persecuted by the state. In China if the state wants you behind bars, you have no hope. It basically the same in the US (maybe slightly better because innocent targets do occassionally get acquitted).

And what happens with corruption. In China or the US corrupt prosecutors are not going to bring a case against the true insiders. Hunter Biden anyone? But if you had this system, any person could bring the evidence and the grand jury could hire a private detective and private lawyer (not beholden by Biden) with a history of public interest work to take on the case. They bring it back to them, the indictment goes forward if there is evidence, regardless of what the President thinks.

But this only happens with decentralization. If you have any system where "elites" have top down authority to pursue cases they have an incentive to be bought or blackmailed. That is much harder to do in a decentralized system, even if you don't think people know what they are doing. I think the average person off the street, in most cases, when presented with the right information will make better decisions that psychopaths who have higher IQs due to the integrity issue. In short, I believe decentralization and better mechanisms of government are the only government solutions to political ponerization. The more centralized the system, the more potential for corruption.

But you can put in systems like this throughout the government to make it work. But you can only have such a system if you have a free society WITH FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. Most governments, especially China, could never allow a system like the one above because they could not convict people of thought crimes - juries would not rubber stamp it.

Instead of joining one authoritarian faction or another, the people need to unite in principle against the elites that run all the governments.
As Putin said, 'China bad' is just another bogeyman tale for kids.
 

I wonder if Tucker is projecting where he claims that Putin is wounded over NATO's rejection of Russia. He tries to attribute emotional reasoning behind Putins actions a number of times in the interview along the lines of 'I see how you are/that could make you angry/resentful/bitter.' Each time Putin responds with strategic reasoning and in his manner and tone I wasn't seeing those emotions at play. As it turns out, Russia doesn't need NATO membership and have faired quite well without it.
 
22 hours later the Putin interview has reached 149 Million people on Carlson’s X account alone!

I do think the interview is historic not really because much new or groundbreaking stuff has been presented, but given the context and how it was conducted and handled from both sides.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think what Putin said and what Carlson asked represents a perfect primer and rebuffing of many key corner stones of western propaganda not only towards Russia but the world in general.

Anyone willing to watch it and maybe overcome the first „hurdle“ of „boring history“ (as many might perceive it) will soon notice that Putin doesn’t sound like the villain at all, that he has been represented as, and that his actions actually are understandable and not crazy at all.

I do think Putin probably made sure to not get too controversial/accusatory/conspiracy minded on purpose, in order to reach as many ordinary people as possible. And I think he succeeded in exactly that! Couple this with Tuckers sometimes quite ordinary/naive reasoning/thinking of a typical westerner and you get the perfect combination to reach even more people and make them question things!

I actually do think we can witness in real time how Tucker is deprogramming himself of the typical american/western propaganda elements and lies. And hundreds of millions of people witness it in real-time by observing him, his interaction with people like Putin, and his own eloquent public reasoning and coming to terms with his own thinking. Amazing to watch actually!
 
Hmmm, on his opening statements in that post-interview monologue:

"Putin's not good at explaining himself (probably because it's his first interview in 4 years)."

Needless to say, it wasn't "Putin's first interview in years." And what do y'all think, is Putin not good at explaining himself? Or did Carlson not understand Putin's explanations?

"Putin's very wounded because the West rejected Russia."

Is that a correct conclusion to draw from what Putin said?
 
As it turns out, Russia doesn't need NATO membership and have faired quite well without it.
Not only that, associating with NATO and the collective west is actually unwise: stupidity is contagious. I liked when they talked about the dollar, sanctions, and the economy at large, Germany, and the "stupidity" of the western elites in some place of power. That the German politicians work for the benefit of the "collective west', maybe a place holder for the globalist elites, rather than the interests of the people who "elect" them should give people something to think about.
Also, drawing a subtle parallel between the present empire and the Roman empire and how things today develop more quickly than before (speaking of collapse) was very interesting.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Tucker is projecting where he claims that Putin is wounded over NATO's rejection of Russia. He tries to attribute emotional reasoning behind Putins actions a number of times in the interview along the lines of 'I see how you are/that could make you angry/resentful/bitter.' Each time Putin responds with strategic reasoning and in his manner and tone I wasn't seeing those emotions at play. As it turns out, Russia doesn't need NATO membership and have faired quite well without it.

Carlson may have been projecting (at least partly) his own frustrations at that point towards Putin for not answering his questions concisely.

I liked Putin’s analogy of how the brain works, operating as two separate hemispheres with their own processes and duties, yet still of the same whole, and only capable of operating optimally by cooperating with one another.

I think Tucker while unpack a lot of what was said in due time. Tucker is smart.
 
Needless to say, it wasn't "Putin's first interview in years." And what do y'all think, is Putin not good at explaining himself? Or did Carlson not understand Putin's explanations?
Personally I disagree, I think he did an excellent job of explaining things, but his explanations probably weren't what the majority of people are used to, particularly after having Biden as a leader!

The explanations could be considered long-winded, but imo it was for good reason. There are so many misconceptions in the West about both himself and Russia and it's possible Putin saw this as an opportunity to educate the public and dispel those myths. To use a bad analogy, you don't just tell someone the sky is blue when they have been told it's yellow, you explain to them how and why it's blue and if that takes 30 minutes then so be it:lol:.
 
Personally I disagree, I think he did an excellent job of explaining things, but his explanations probably weren't what the majority of people are used to, particularly after having Biden as a leader!
Exactly what I was thinking.. And as for Putin feeling "wounded by the West's rejection of Russia", well it's kind of a "juvenile dictionary" way of seeing it I think...understandable when that's the dictionary of the whole political environment you're used to...Putin's just on a whole nother level! At one point in the interview Carlson said something like "you're obviously bitter about the West's rejection", to which Putin replied "Bitter? No, I'm just stating the facts..", which is just what he was doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom