Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

An interesting reaction to Lavrov's interview has been published. I especially liked "LOVErov"
"Magnificent Sergei": Lavrov won the hearts of US women after interview with Carlson

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov literally won the hearts of women from the United States after he was interviewed by American journalist Tucker Carlson.

So, American women note that Lavrov's voice "gives you the creeps." In addition, residents of the United States are wondering why American politicians cannot look like a Russian minister.

"Is he married?" – and one of the American women asked herself on her social network page after watching an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Tucker Carlson.

"THE MAGNIFICENT SERGEI...!!! In the meantime, Mr. Lavrov has won the hearts of American women. I think I need a new T–shirt," said another @euroboma user on the social network X (formerly Twitter), who wanted a T-shirt with an image of Sergey Lavrov.

"A brilliant interview, Lavrov, as always a brilliant statesman," said user @margaretcheal1.

"American women have given Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov a new name – "LOVErov"... Blinken must be jealous and feels inferior," @temporistempus wrote.

"Great Lavrov!" wrote @Primula23244795.
Click to expand...
"Великолепный Сергей": Лавров покорил сердца женщин США после интервью Карлсону

Опубликована интересная реакция на интервью Лаврова. Мне особенно понравилось "LOVErov"
 
One of the better interviews I've seen in a while is Tucker's most recent with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs is always good, and one of the few unafraid to call out Israel/Netanyahu for their psychopathic insanity. Lots covered in this one, but definitely worth the time.

 
Beau said:
One of the better interviews I've seen in a while is Tucker's most recent with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs is always good, and one of the few unafraid to call out Israel/Netanyahu for their psychopathic insanity. Lots covered in this one, but definitely worth the time.
Click to expand...

I second it, great interview, finished it today. Tucker Carlson got a lot of heat because of it, the same old "antisemitism!" shouting cry-babies came out of the woodwork to shame and discredit Carlson, yet Jeffrey Sachs is actually a Jew!

It was also interesting that though Carlson said nothing against Israel/Netanyahu, his "innocent" journalistic questions allowed Sachs to repeat the facts in a way that would be understandable to the American audience. I noticed that he did the same thing during his interview with Sergey Lavrov. A magnificent interview that one, which unfortunately almost immediately got "buried" under news from the Syrian front and the lights in the skies.
 
Beau said:
One of the better interviews I've seen in a while is Tucker's most recent with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs is always good, and one of the few unafraid to call out Israel/Netanyahu for their psychopathic insanity. Lots covered in this one, but definitely worth the time.
Click to expand...
Indeed! Thank you for sharing!

Alana said:
It was also interesting that though Carlson said nothing against Israel/Netanyahu, his "innocent" journalistic questions allowed Sachs to repeat the facts in a way that would be understandable to the American audience. I noticed that he did the same thing during his interview with Sergey Lavrov. A magnificent interview that one, which unfortunately almost immediately got "buried" under news from the Syrian front and the lights in the skies.
Click to expand...
Yes! And also I think how smart Sachs was, when asked about 9/11 - he went on a different path of answering, and a bit later casually dropped how CIA is founding ISIS and Al-Qaida etc, and how he repeatedly said throughout the interview how it it all by Zionist´s plan. I cannot recall if Tucker was doing any of his research on 9/11, but Sachs certainly gave him a tons of hints.

Excellent interview!
 
Tucker's interview with Sachs was really really good. Worth sharing with others who are only just starting to question, or join the dots; they cover a lot of ground, but I notice that each time Sachs is interviewed.

While watching, like Alana and Mari, I was thinking the same thing about Tucker - his supposed naivety suggests he is a bit of a 'deer in headlights' and gives the appearance of only just starting to piece things together from a place of growing objectivity. I think to some degree this is a protective mechanism - hey, I'm just innocently asking questions and wanting a broad variety of input - but I suspect this is not the reality of his comprehension.

I think he is doing all he can to support viewers who may only just be awakening to 'journey with him' so it feels like they all have a shift collectively - a bit like planting new seeds in the conscious collective, kindof a stealth move.

I admire Sachs willingness to speak so openly and honestly; also that he affirms that those in the Middle East have for at least the last two years been wanting to negotiate some kind of peace - I don't hear too many other people acknowledging this who can share on such a powerful platform. Sachs vulnerability because of his willingness to speak openly was touched upon, but I also could not help but think of Trump, how stressful his Inauguration Day will be for so many people trying to protect him to the best of their ability - and throughout his Presidency. It is clear the PTB know he and his team are going to foil some of their juiciest plans whether they like it or not.

Which leads me to my next post...
 

Tom Homan’s Plan to Destroy the Cartel Empire, End Child Trafficking, and Secure the Border for Good​

Great interview with Tom. Tough guy, knows his stuff, rock solid dude, but if you want to see the man behind the Border Czar, watch this interview. You will understand why he is so committed to doing his job.

If you can't watch the whole thing, maybe just watch from around 50 minutes. Some terrible, disturbing stories Tom tells - not necessarily things you have not heard of before - but you can see how very moved and deeply affected he is by what he has seen, what he knows.

Many interesting things discussed, just a few here:

Cartels
- how they are basically like a Fortune 500 company
- have access to military grade weapons
- they have full control of the South West Border
- US teams can only catch 10% of what is coming over the border
- fentanyl crisis and how it's getting in over the open border

Obama - Transgender Policy - Tom had a falling out with him over the policy - Obama ordered him to sign it.
Obama wanted special treatment for Transgender individuals / acknowledge they 'identified' as Trans / protected / separated medications + treatment / wanted the US Gov to pay for hormone therapy. Said you would be surprised how many there were.

Biden administration in the last 3 days auctioned off portions of the unfinished border wall / materials for building the remainder of the wall - at bargain basement prices. Biden admin doing all they can to set Trump administration up for failure / won't stop at anything to slow Trump's team down.

HOLMAN: "They hate Trump more than they love the country."
TUCKER: "I think they hate the country more than they hate Trump even - he represents the country to them - the old country that they tried to change with immigration."

1. Tom Homan’s Detailed Plan to Fix the Border
2. How to End the Cartel Drug Empire
3. Biden Auctioning Off the Border Wall
4. The Prioritization of Illegal Immigrants Over Americans
5. What Happened to Mayor Eric Adams?
6. Illegals Coming From China and Russia
7. Child Trafficking

 
Cross-posting from the UnitedHealthcare CEO thread, this interview with Brigham Buhler (a pharmacist in the US) explains the US healthcare system & their medical insurance.


I listened to this interview last night and highly recommend it, All I can say is my gosh, was a morass of absolute, sickening corruption. Profits before people (at the cost of their lives). I don’t even know how one would go about righting things, the corruption is so ingrained at every level.

The Cs did allude to the medical system being motivated by very STS energies.
Session 14 March 1998
A: It IS true that one is wise not to trust bold proclamations from your "mainstream"medical system, as these are motivated by intense STS energy. Also, they have proven to be wrong far more often than right. It is perhaps wise for one to reserve visits and consortations with the above mentioned "establishment" to the instances of physical trauma, and life threatening emergencies, as this is the "place" for said entities. Chronic conditions and wellness, prevention, etc., these are the realms of the homeopaths and Naturopaths, all paths inspired by 4th density STO.
Click to expand...
 
I just listened to the Jeffrey Sach’s and Tom Homan’s interviews. Thanks for the recommendations, the Sach’s interview is very much worth sitting down and listening to. I’m hoping to convince my neo-con husband to listen to it.

Having listened to several of Tucker’s interviews “his supposed naivety” is an excellent method he is perfecting to make sure the listener has all the background and can understand the topic’s lexicon to fully comprehend what is being laid out by the interviewee. Tucker is making sure the story flows coherently implying he understands some of his topics extremely well.
 
I have watched 95% of Tucker's interview with Bernard Hudson, former CIA, 28 years of service (1989-2017). All in all, it's a very disappointing interview. Hudson definitely did not come out as a whistleblower! For nearly two hours, Hudson rehashes the mainstream narrative about all the sensitive topics (JFK, 9/11, ISIS, drones, Ukraine, terror attacks, etc) despite Tucker's piercing questions. Hudson says he "personally did not witness corruption" in the CIA. He makes it sound as if "toxicity" spilled into the Intel Agencies due to bureaucracy. I mean, come on, only sheep can believe that at this point.

I don't know why Tucker interviewed him. Was he trying to get insider information? Hudson was pretty much walking on eggshells throughout the interview, which is understandable. Although he agreed with Tucker that many things should be declassified (JFK, 9/11), he acted like an innocent man, a well-oiled puppet who was never at odds with what the CIA made him do.

In my opinion, the CIA is trying to do damage control through Hudson. It's clear that Hudson wasn't there for "explosive" revelations. He never went much beyond the official narrative, and downplayed any form of "nefarious" agenda behind the US government's actions. Cooling down Tucker's audience seems to have been the plan—a failure, I must say.

On a positive note, I think the interview proved that the US government has a lot to hide, and so little incentive to reveal the truth.
 
Agreed , just the material evidence on 911 is enough for even the most ignorant human to acknowledge the blatant lie of the official myth on such issue , Mr. Tucker's whole body language ( and ) showed him to be very off center , but he surely was patient to go through all that time talking to him, gotta wonder if this was a programmed bot given all the blatant propaganda spewed by B. Hudson
Natus Videre said:
I have watched 95% of Tucker's interview with Bernard Hudson, former CIA, 28 years of service (1989-2017). All in all, it's a very disappointing interview. Hudson definitely did not come out as a whistleblower! For nearly two hours, Hudson rehashes the mainstream narrative about all the sensitive topics (JFK, 9/11, ISIS, drones, Ukraine, terror attacks, etc) despite Tucker's piercing questions. Hudson says he "personally did not witness corruption" in the CIA. He makes it sound as if "toxicity" spilled into the Intel Agencies due to bureaucracy. I mean, come on, only sheep can believe that at this point.

I don't know why Tucker interviewed him. Was he trying to get insider information? Hudson was pretty much walking on eggshells throughout the interview, which is understandable. Although he agreed with Tucker that many things should be declassified (JFK, 9/11), he acted like an innocent man, a well-oiled puppet who was never at odds with what the CIA made him do.

In my opinion, the CIA is trying to do damage control through Hudson. It's clear that Hudson wasn't there for "explosive" revelations. He never went much beyond the official narrative, and downplayed any form of "nefarious" agenda behind the US government's actions. Cooling down Tucker's audience seems to have been the plan—a failure, I must say.

On a positive note, I think the interview proved that the US government has a lot to hide, and so little incentive to reveal the truth.
Click to expand...
 
Natus Videre said:
I have watched 95% of Tucker's interview with Bernard Hudson, former CIA, 28 years of service (1989-2017). All in all, it's a very disappointing interview. Hudson definitely did not come out as a whistleblower! For nearly two hours, Hudson rehashes the mainstream narrative about all the sensitive topics (JFK, 9/11, ISIS, drones, Ukraine, terror attacks, etc) despite Tucker's piercing questions. Hudson says he "personally did not witness corruption" in the CIA. He makes it sound as if "toxicity" spilled into the Intel Agencies due to bureaucracy. I mean, come on, only sheep can believe that at this point.

I don't know why Tucker interviewed him. Was he trying to get insider information? Hudson was pretty much walking on eggshells throughout the interview, which is understandable. Although he agreed with Tucker that many things should be declassified (JFK, 9/11), he acted like an innocent man, a well-oiled puppet who was never at odds with what the CIA made him do.

In my opinion, the CIA is trying to do damage control through Hudson. It's clear that Hudson wasn't there for "explosive" revelations. He never went much beyond the official narrative, and downplayed any form of "nefarious" agenda behind the US government's actions. Cooling down Tucker's audience seems to have been the plan—a failure, I must say.

On a positive note, I think the interview proved that the US government has a lot to hide, and so little incentive to reveal the truth.
Click to expand...
Agree, the impression i've got from the interview is as if Hudson was PR campaigning on behalf of the CIA, like a desperate move to rehabilitate the agency's reputation in the minds of the people.
 
In the following interview Tucker has a very interesting discussion together with Peter Kuznick and Oliver Stone about the West's antagonism towards Russia for the last 100 years. They've discussed about the Manhattan project, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Pearl Harbor as necessary moves to intimidate and antagonize the eventually the USSR. They've touched upon JFK assassination, 9/11, the mess the US waged in Middle East afterwards and the current situation in Ukraine.

Worth to watch it:

 
Natus Videre said:
I have watched 95% of Tucker's interview with Bernard Hudson, former CIA, 28 years of service (1989-2017). All in all, it's a very disappointing interview.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I stopped a quarter of the way through because the guy is either a stooge for the elites or a nobody in the CIA. No idea why Tucker gave him a platform. All of the comments on YouTube were negative towards Hudson, encouragingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom