The Vladimir Putin Interview - Tucker Carlson

[josh987654321]

Full Interview - https://tuckercarlson.com/the-vladimir-putin-interview/

Just finished watching it and just thought I'd mention some of my thoughts.

The start was interesting and important, even though I don't think Tucker fully understood IMO, but it's important because the whole thing has been framed wrong, so it's important to understand the history, the framing of the issue to properly analyse the subject matter.

The second main point, is that even though Putin didn't or couldn't really explain it fully, I feel exactly the same as he does, as the same tactics have been used against myself and most of us, especially in regards to the Church or in regards to the whole 'gay marriage' thing they put as all through and COVID etc, it's exactly the same thing!

So take Bergoglio, at first I thought he was the Pope and legitimately elected, but then one error after another I began to be suspicious, then as I acquire more information and the situation develops, you get a clearer picture (Just 1 year later in 2014 they conducted the violent and undemocratic coup in Ukraine, the Arab Spring before that etc, Wikileaks proves that they targeted the Church against Pope Benedict XVI), so each thing on it's own is not enough, if anyone is like "yes but what point did you decide this" then it's entirely wrong, as there is no one point, it's an accumulation of points and developments which leads to an accurate conclusion.

Each thing on it's own is not enough, but accumulative it's very obvious and one must push back in one way or another. Then we get called hypocrites for drawing the line at Supplicans Fiducia, but not as much on previous encyclicals etc, but obviously these previous documents were also heretical, but one must draw the line somewhere and one must push back somewhere.

For the outside observer, it's like "Sounds like whataboutism and your just bringing up a whole range of things and trying to mash them together" and it's not like that at all, it's we are under attack, we know this, the question is how do we respond, in what way and at what time, we must push back, we must do so carefully and methodically as they are clearly hunting us, very cunning and clever under the guise of incompetence and ignorance, of course some are incompetent and ignorant, but as a whole, there is a very clear, cunning and methodical ultimate goal being worked toward.

Take the whole 'gay marriage' debate (framed carefully as 'marriage equality' to imply the status quo was fundamentally unjust, conclusion already reached before even begun), I remember when that first began "How will allowing two people of the same sex marry affect you?" "If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex then don't." "It's just about more freedom for everybody.", then you see demonization and forces to acquiesce to what you know is wrong, then attacks on the family, kids etc and furthermore, intentional straw men and misleading fallacious arguments, and not just fallacious, but in such a way to demonize and persecute you down the road, no, there is an agenda here, more pressure.

Then you're a hypocrite again because of tolerating divorce and remarriage, yes but these are still negative developments, all of these are negative developments, at some point one needs to push back and turn this ship around or your gonna be lulled into ultimate slaughter and if one doesn't wake up and push back at some point, you'll turn around and it'll be way too little too late when they show their true colours.

Then take COVID, they claim they didn't mandate anything, but slowly and surely, we were coerced in every way possible, I was fired over it and the government not only didn't do anything to protect you, but actively encouraged your persecution all while maintaining plausible deniability, just look at how the WHO's Tedros replied to Jair Bolsonaro when asked about jab passports, Tedros said that while the jab rate was low it could be discriminatory... so it's just a numbers game. No! if it's discriminatory when your not a majority, then it's just as discriminatory when you have a majority! It's just that when you have a majority then we can't stop it! I know exactly what your up to Tedros!

The same thing was done in Australia when they said lockdowns would be lifted when over 70% were jabbed, then it became 80%, then 90% and then they just pretended they never said such things when they had the numbers.

First the propaganda, then the private companies mandating it while the authorities use plausible deniability, slowly but surely more and more pressure and you could never single out a single person, or a single development, as it was all accumulative coming at us from every angle. Pressure, pressure and pressure, accumulative it is all linked and very cunning.

They are carefully positioning themselves and their proxies so that when they show their true colours and turn on us, they have already won as by that time we are totally defenceless, therefore we must also carefully position ourselves so that when they show their true colours and turn on us, we still have resources to draw from in order to defend ourselves.

One thing that needs to be drilled home, is that accumulative, this is not just mistakes, ignorance or incompetence, it is interconnected with an overriding agenda and ultimate goal only under the guise of mistakes, ignorance and incompetence. Our Prime Minister says that he never forced anyone to take the jab and that as free citizens we could choose for ourselves, but he was the leader of Australia at the time, he knew exactly what was going on and made moves to intentionally set it up that way, he is feigning ignorance, he knew, actively worked for and intended it to happen as it did, all while maintaining plausible deniability, very, very cunning, not ignorant or incompetent. It is the same thing with Bergoglio and what they're doing to Russia etc.     

"Wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (Matt 10:16)

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless

[Greg]

When he went into the Russian history lesson at the start I thought to myself, 'oh dear, he just lost 98% of Americans who have the attention span of a goldfish'.

Perhaps they used the slider bar and skipped that part.

It reminded me of the justification of the bishop to Henry V's claim to France at the start of Shakespeare's play.

Putin should have reduce that entire essay to a pithy soundbite.

Something like this.  If immigrants in the USA can put native Americans on reservations, destroy Iraq, Libya and Serbia and Israel can expand into Palestine then Russia can certainly protect Russian speakers from persecution by Ukrainian Nazis who are funded by insane neocons.  Our actions are way more just and moral than those former two cases of territorial aggression.

[josh987654321]

When he went into the Russian history lesson at the start I thought to myself, 'oh dear, he just lost 98% of Americans who have the attention span of a goldfish'.

This is an illness that can be cured and must be cured for the sake of western civilisation itself IMO, that's why journalists like Tucker Carlson are important, allowing subjects to be dealt with in appropriate level of detail (not excessive but not toxic sound bites either) and why ultimately, his FOX News segment actually limited his potential, as many subjects could only be reduced to sound bites due to the time allotted, as Vivek Ramaswamy said in regards to a few second political ads which is really the bastardization of democracy and does nothing but reinforce confirmation biases and preach to the choir.

It reminded me of the justification of the bishop to Henry V's claim to France at the start of Shakespeare's play.

I'm not familiar with that analogy.

Putin should have reduce that entire essay to a pithy soundbite.

I think this would've been a big mistake. Soundbites are what western propaganda does and are far more skilled at it with far more reach.

Something like this.  If immigrants in the USA can put native Americans on reservations, destroy Iraq, Libya and Serbia and Israel can expand into Palestine then Russia can certainly protect Russian speakers from persecution by Ukrainian Nazis who are funded by insane neocons.  Our actions are way more just and moral than those former two cases of territorial aggression.

It is important to point out the hypocrisy and double standards, but it cannot be left there, otherwise it is 'whataboutism' and it implies that you are also in the wrong, "yeah but they did it too and worse" the first thought is, maybe so, but it's still wrong and didn't explain either, so it just covers you both in mud at the end of the day, there needs to be a case made... the pointing out hypocrisy is important, but there also needs to be a case made as to why your actions are the right ones IMO.

God Bless

[josh987654321]

Also another correction in regards to a question from Tucker Carlson, the proper translation is "Thou shalt not Murder" not "Thou shalt not Kill" so it's perfectly legitimate for a Christian in proportional self defence.

God Bless

[Greg]

It reminded me of the justification of the bishop to Henry V's claim to France at the start of Shakespeare's play.

I'm not familiar with that analogy.

6 mins in.

[clau clau]

Here's the full interview on YouTube.  I found the first link at the top a little difficult to use.

[LausTibiChriste]

When he went into the Russian history lesson at the start I thought to myself, 'oh dear, he just lost 98% of Americans who have the attention span of a goldfish'.

I think that was the point

Even Tucker could barely pay attention.

Putin toys with Western journalists so much, it's hilarious to watch.

Seen on Telegram:

Regardless of your opinion on Putin, his goal of making the lives of every Western journalist who interviews him worse and significantly more annoying is a pretty funny tactic he plays every time he's interviewed.

The reason journos don't like interviewing Putin, even before this war is because he really likes talking over them and calling them stupid, it's a personal pleasure of his, as is talking only in Russian so they have to hire a translator even though he speaks fluent English

[james03]

even before this war is because he really likes talking over them and calling them stupid

Favorite word of a Russian: Idiot.

[james03]

and what they're doing to Russia etc.

They:

Browder (especially)
Nuland
Feltman
Kagan
Blinken
Farkis
Soros
Kolomoisky
Zlochevsky
Zelensky
Yermak

[james03]

then the private companies mandating it

HOW this is done was quite ingenious (respect your enemies' abilities).

It is done through passive investment funds, especially index funds.  I'll create a simple example.

Suppose Dow Jones creates: "The Super Beer Index" (SBI) which is simply the average stock price of the brewers of Coors and the brewers of Bud Light (too lazy to look them up).  So one is at $60 and the other is at $70, therefore SBI is reported as "65" that day, and it gets posted to various websites.

Blackrock announces that they have created a new passive fund to track the SBI, which is called SBIF.  Pension funds allocate 1% to purchase SBIF because they like beer.  Every month Blackrock gets $20 million and buys $10MM of Coors and $10MM of Bud Light, whatever the price.  This is called passive investing and also index tracking.  You can tell by the math that the value of SBIF will follow the SBI.

Note what happens.  Over time Blackrock accumulates over 50% of Bud Light.  And lets say that the head of Blackrock is a jewish bolshevik named Larry Fink.  He now controls the Bud Light company.  So he names leftists on the board of the company who are only interested in destroying the remnants of The West by destroying its culture with DEI and ESG.  So they launch a tranny commercial.

SBIF crashes and loses 30% of its money.  Can you sue Blackrock?  No.  He did EXACTLY what he said he'd do.  Every month he used half of the money that came in to purchase Bud Light.  That's the only thing he is obligated to do.

This was a simple example I pulled out of my butt.  The reality is far graver.  Blackrock and firms like it have S&P 500 index tracking funds.  Which means they are major share holders in the top 500 companies in the US.  They also have Sector Funds.  Which means they have major holdings in the top companies in vital sectors: tech, internet, news media, movie studios, AIRLINES, etc... 

This is how the jewish bolsheviks infiltrated private corporations and why they now control the entire economy.  The only legal fix is to pass legislation that blocks passive funds from voting on board members or having any say in corporate management.

There's also a fiduciary tort whereby you prove they selected board members to do things other than promote the welfare of the company.  Very hard to prove.  You can use a circular argument defense: ESG is a major benchmark for companies, so we chose members knowledgeable in ESG.  It's circular because it was the jewish bolsheviks who hyped ESG in the first place.

[Severinus]

From the outset I'm regarding this as an effort (on Putin's side) to propagandize moderate and conservative westerners through a non-hostile outlet. I don't say propagandize in any specially pejorative way, I see it as just a matter of fact thing in mass media and politics.

In that context it seems to me that Putin failed to capitalize. The lengthy historical digressions are a complete failure and provided voluminous material for Western experts to pick apart, whether with good reason or speciously none of us know. Nor does it even matter since they amount to nothing for the Western audience, as Tucker illustrated when he asked "so you think states have the right to take back borders as they were in the 17th century?" leading to Putin stammering out a non-answer.

The idea that he is just trolling Tucker is risible - the leader of Russia would not take hours out of his schedule to troll someone, or, even dumber, intentionally lose the audience he's there to influence. The evident fact is that Putin mishandled that part and several other parts of the opportunity.

For instance, his persistence in describing Ukrainian opponents as neo-nazis. People in the West think it's weird that parts of Ukraine's military and military brass appear to have neo-nazi sympathies, but nobody here views the Ukraine as a neo-nazi state nor places the narrative weight on any of this that Putin and the Russian establishment do.

Related to that is his repeated castigation of Ukrainian nationalism, which he thematically links with their supposed fascism. First recall that Tucker's base audience is one that has come to regard nationalism as valuable and praiseworthy, and this is who Putin is primarily attempting to propagandize. The presentation of nationalism as a negative thing linked to fascism lands very flatly and awkwardly with this audience, who associate those talking points with the globalist left.

Notice that Tucker tries several times to steer Putin towards a point that actually lands with Westerners, namely that he felt obliged to act against Ukraine under the threat of NATO expansionism. Putin did not make any hay of this, oddly, and if not for Tucker's prodding may not really have discussed it much at all. This will raise questions in viewers' minds whether Putin himself sees this rationale as weighty. It's rather confusing.

NATO expansionism, Ukrainian corruption (and its Western links), and Ukraine's abuse of their Russian-speaking minority are the points that can land with an appreciable segment of us. If I were advising Putin I'd have coached him to hammer hard on these.

Putin's rhetoric was best when he was discussing the present global economic realities and outlook, in the context of BRICS growth, and emphasizing that US policy and elite mindset are pursuing counterproductive strategies rather than adapting.

His other propanda victories in this interview are that he appears in good health (not imminently dying of cancer as Western outlets often claim), calm and collected, and possessed of a genius level IQ compared to Biden.

All in all a big viewer grab for Tucker and a missed opportunity for Putin.

[Kaesekopf]

From the outset I'm regarding this as an effort (on Putin's side) to propagandize moderate and conservative westerners through a non-hostile outlet.

Yea, anything with a camera financed by anyone is literally always propaganda.

[Heinrich]

then the private companies mandating it

HOW this is done was quite ingenious (respect your enemies' abilities).

It is done through passive investment funds, especially index funds.  I'll create a simple example.

Suppose Dow Jones creates: "The Super Beer Index" (SBI) which is simply the average stock price of the brewers of Coors and the brewers of Bud Light (too lazy to look them up).  So one is at $60 and the other is at $70, therefore SBI is reported as "65" that day, and it gets posted to various websites.

Blackrock announces that they have created a new passive fund to track the SBI, which is called SBIF.  Pension funds allocate 1% to purchase SBIF because they like beer.  Every month Blackrock gets $20 million and buys $10MM of Coors and $10MM of Bud Light, whatever the price.  This is called passive investing and also index tracking.  You can tell by the math that the value of SBIF will follow the SBI.

Note what happens.  Over time Blackrock accumulates over 50% of Bud Light.  And lets say that the head of Blackrock is a jewish bolshevik named Larry Fink.  He now controls the Bud Light company.  So he names leftists on the board of the company who are only interested in destroying the remnants of The West by destroying its culture with DEI and ESG.  So they launch a tranny commercial.

SBIF crashes and loses 30% of its money.  Can you sue Blackrock?  No.  He did EXACTLY what he said he'd do.  Every month he used half of the money that came in to purchase Bud Light.  That's the only thing he is obligated to do.

This was a simple example I pulled out of my butt.  The reality is far graver.  Blackrock and firms like it have S&P 500 index tracking funds.  Which means they are major share holders in the top 500 companies in the US.  They also have Sector Funds.  Which means they have major holdings in the top companies in vital sectors: tech, internet, news media, movie studios, AIRLINES, etc... 

This is how the jewish bolsheviks infiltrated private corporations and why they now control the entire economy.  The only legal fix is to pass legislation that blocks passive funds from voting on board members or having any say in corporate management.

There's also a fiduciary tort whereby you prove they selected board members to do things other than promote the welfare of the company.  Very hard to prove.  You can use a circular argument defense: ESG is a major benchmark for companies, so we chose members knowledgeable in ESG.  It's circular because it was the jewish bolsheviks who hyped ESG in the first place.

So this is how (((Singer))) slinked his way into Cabela's.

[awkward customer]

Apparently the interview has been watched by 150 million people so far which suggests that Putin has an audience outside the West.

The history lesson was long - has Putin never heard of bullet points? Of course he has, but this was deliberate and with a world audience in mind.  He was stating the case that Ukraine is a made-up country, assembled by taking territory from neighbouring countries and cobbling them together.  This was largely down to the machinations of the Soviets.  And in a slightly world weary way he made the case strongly against NATO's schemes in the region, accusing NATO of blowing up the  Nord Stream pipeline and Boris Johnstone of flying to Istanbul to persuade Zelensky to reject the peace deal of March 2022 that would have ended the war and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  By the end I was wishing the interview could have gone on for much longer.

Tucker did an amazing job.  I actually detected a bit of a rapport between Tucker and Putin as the interview progressed.  The history lesson was good on reflection and really set the scene for Poland, Hungary and Romania to claim their "ancestral lands" in what is now western Ukraine, just as Russia is claiming her "ancestral lands " in the east.

And Putin also referred repeatedly to the "Russian soul".  Who here wouldn't love a leader who spoke like that?   What a contrast with the power hungry, money grubbing psychopaths who run the West.  I think a lot of  people around the world will take this interview seriously and it will be much studied.

[Michael Wilson]

Here is Michael Knowles' view on the interview on the Putin interview 7min 16sec.