reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon
(Thread 1/3): Joined @MarkSteynOnline on @FoxNews tonight to discuss the #NSA unmasking of @TuckerCarlson. Unmasking like this was abused during the @BarackObama administration and I am afraid it is being abused now. No #American journalist should be surveilled this way. https://t.co/oJyTLlOdxg
@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom
Tucker Carlson is in Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin. Uncensored on X. The US deep state and the Biden administration must be in panic mode because Putin (the most censored man in the West) will expose their propaganda and lies. https://t.co/OXq9j8O3GX
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
Ex-Congressman Adam Kinzinger says Tucker Carlson is a traitor. Bill Kristol says Tucker shouldn't be allowed to return to the U.S. They praised Barbara Walters, so why are they so afraid of this interview with Putin? https://t.co/ggSExqlGdg
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
Tucker Carlson is currently in Moscow, Russia to interview Vladamir Putin and the media is in panic mode. They're losing control of the narrative. https://t.co/AgnezZ8Xx3
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
The U.S. government spied on Tucker Carlson to stop him from interviewing Vladamir Putin. https://t.co/6VTQpJhBUf
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was surprised to learn that someone had hacked into my Signal account. It turns out it was the NSA, as they admitted it when they contacted me. They knew about my plans to visit Putin, which I hadn't shared with anyone, not even my family. When I asked how they knew, they explained that they had accessed my text messages with the person I was communicating with. I was shocked by this invasion of privacy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Say broke into my signal account, which I didn't know they could do. How do how do you know the NSA broke into your signal? Because they admitted it. I got a call from somebody in Washington. It's like, are you planning a trip to go see Putin?
And I was like, how would you know that? I haven't told any I mean, anybody. Not my brother, not my wife, nobody. How would you know that? Because NSA pulled your text with this other person you were texting.
How did you know?
reSee.it AI Summary
Tucker Carlson accuses the Biden administration of illegally spying on him and claims that he is interviewing Putin due to media lies. He believes that English-speaking countries are unaware of the truth because of corrupt media outlets. Carlson also alleges that the administration leaked his text messages to hinder a previous Putin interview. Despite potential interference, he emphasizes that their trip to Moscow is self-funded and driven by a desire to protect the United States' prosperity and freedom. Carlson encourages people to seek uncontrolled information and think independently.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
JUST IN: Tucker Carlson says the Biden administration illegally spied on him and says he is interviewing Putin because the media is lying to the American people about what's really going on. 🔥🔥🔥 "[English speaking countries] think that nothing has really changed and they think that because no one has told them the truth. Their media outlets are corrupt." "Three years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on our text messages and then leaked the contents to their servants in the news media." "They did this in order to stop a Putin interview that we were planning last month. We're pretty certain they did exactly the same thing once again, but this time we came to Moscow anyway." "We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin. We are here because we love the United States and we want it to remain prosperous and free. We paid for this trip ourselves." "They're afraid of information they can't control, but you have no reason to be afraid of it... You should know as much as you can and then think like a free citizen and not a slave. You can decide for yourself." Legendary.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker highlights the lack of awareness in English-speaking countries about significant global developments, contrasting it with the awareness in Asia and the Middle East. They criticize the corrupt and biased media outlets in these countries, particularly in the US, for promoting government propaganda instead of journalism. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding the conflict in Ukraine and criticizes the lack of interviews with Vladimir Putin. They assert the right to freedom of speech and accuse the Biden administration of spying and leaking information to prevent a planned Putin interview. The speaker assures that their trip to Moscow was self-funded and encourages viewers to watch the unedited interview on their website. They anticipate censorship from Western governments but urge viewers to make their own informed decisions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They are history altering developments. They will define the lives of our grandchildren. Most of the world understands this perfectly well. They can see it. Ask anyone in Asia or the Middle East what the future looks like.
And yet, the populations of the English speaking countries seem mostly unaware. They think that is nothing has really changed, and they think that because no one has told them the truth. Their media outlets are corrupt. They lie to their readers and viewers, and they do that mostly by omission. For example, since the day the war in Ukraine began, American media outlets have spoken to scores of people from Ukraine, and they have done scores of interviews with Ukrainian president Zelensky.
We ourselves have put in a request for interview with Zelensky, and we hope he accepts. But, the interviews he's already done in the United States are not traditional interviews. They are fawning pep Sessions, specifically designed to amplify Zelensky's demand that the US enter more deeply into a war in Eastern Europe and pay for it. That is not journalism. It is government propaganda.
Propaganda of the ugliest kind. The kind that kills people. At the same time, our politicians and media outlets have been doing this, promoting a foreign leader like he's a new consumer brand, Not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin. Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine, or what his goals are now. They've never heard his voice.
That's wrong. Americans have a right to know all they can about a war they're implicated in, and we have the right to tell them about it, because we are Americans too. Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe. That right cannot be taken away no matter who is in the White House, but they're trying anyway.
Almost 3 years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on our text messages and then leaked the contents to their servants in the news media. They did this in order to stop a Putin interview that we were planning. Last month, we're pretty certain they did exactly the same thing once again, but this time, we came to Moscow anyway. We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin. We are here because we love the United States, but we wanted to remain prosperous and free.
We paid for this trip ourselves. We took no money from any government or group, nor are we charging people to see the interview. It is not behind a paywall. Anyone can watch the entire thing shot live to tape and unedited on our website, tucker carlson.com. Elon Musk, his great credit, has promised not to suppress or block this interview once we post it on his platform x, and we're grateful for that.
Western governments, by contrast, will certainly do their best to censor this video on other less principle platforms because That's what they do. They were afraid of information they can't control, but you have no reason to be afraid of it. We are not encouraging you to agree with what Putin may say in this interview, but we are urging you to watch it. You should know as much as you can, and then Like a free citizen and not a slave, you can decide for yourself. Thanks.
reSee.it AI Summary
Can you comment on colleagues calling Tucker Carlson a "traitor" for interviewing Putin?
@csharpner - American
@KeirSimmons can you comment on your colleagues trying to call your other colleague, @TuckerCarlson a "traitor" for interviewing Putin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pJd6O_NT0
@csharpner - American
@KeirSimmons @TuckerCarlson @charlierose can you comment on your colleagues trying to call your other colleague, @TuckerCarlson a "traitor" for interviewing Putin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l69tRETnlo
@csharpner - American
@KeirSimmons @TuckerCarlson @charlierose @_HadleyGamble @HADLEYGAMBLE can you comment on your colleagues trying to call your other colleague, @TuckerCarlson a "traitor" for interviewing Putin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLzejY5zV5U
@csharpner - American
@KeirSimmons @TuckerCarlson @charlierose @_HadleyGamble @HADLEYGAMBLE @NBCNews can you comment on your colleagues trying to call your other colleague, @TuckerCarlson a "traitor" for interviewing Putin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzJSP99a4T4
@csharpner - American
@KeirSimmons @TuckerCarlson @charlierose @_HadleyGamble @HADLEYGAMBLE @NBCNews @RogerJStoneJr can you comment on the left wing reporters calling @TuckerCarlson a "traitor" for interviewing Putin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDP7ik2wBzs
@HansMahncke - Hans Mahncke
Two and a half years ago, NBC interviewed Putin. It didn't go too well. That's why they've been trying to sabotage Tucker's interview. https://t.co/hTVaKbIfdF
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker denies ordering the assassination of Alexei Navalny and criticizes the assumption that they have a habit of assassinations. They question whether the person asking the question ordered the assassination of the woman who was shot in the US Congress. They highlight that 450 individuals were arrested for entering the Congress with political demands, facing potential jail time. The speaker suggests that this could be seen as persecution for political opinions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ask you may I just ask you a direct question? Did you order Alexei Navalny's assassination? Of course not. We don't have this kind of habit of assassinating anybody. That's 1.
Number 2 is I want to ask you, did you order the Assassination of the woman who walked into the congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman. Do you know that 400 And 50 individuals were arrested after entering the congress, and they didn't go there to steal a laptop. They came with political demands. 450 people have been detained. You're talking about a capital They're looking at jail time Between 15 25 years, and they came to the congress with political demands.
Isn't that persecution for political opinions?
reSee.it AI Summary
Tucker Carlson's interview with Julian Assange is still pending, raising questions about its content. The fake Crowdstrike report on the DNC email hack is being discussed, along with the possibility of a whistleblower being involved. The fear of the truth being exposed has led to desperate measures, including Trump's impeachment. Assange and Putin hold the potential to dismantle the carefully constructed facade surrounding the DNC emails. Brace yourself for a quiz on related topics. Something big is coming, causing panic in Washington DC.
@drawandstrike - Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit
Remember as we wait for the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin 2.0 to drop, Tucker still has that interview he did months ago with Julian Assange inside Belmarsh Prison in his back pocket. For some mysterious reason that isn't yet apparent, Tucker has held back that interview. Did Assange tell him something that led him to want to get the Russian President on the record first before he releases the Assange interview? 🤔
@drawandstrike - Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit
Think "Crowdstrike Report on the Russian Hackers Who Supposedly Hacked The DNC Server and Stole The DNC Emails". Roll it around in your brain. Ponder at depth the various angles. About the fake Crowdstrike report. And how utterly fake it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks
Democratic national committee cyber attacks - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
@drawandstrike - Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit
Think, ponder and reflect on these plot points: 1. Russian hackers didn't take the DNC emails 2. Crowdstrike was brought in to provide a COVER STORY for how the DNC emails were actually taken 3. The person who took the DNC emails and gave them to Julian Assange was a whistleblower 4. This person later ended up dead under strange circumstances 5. The bad guys in this movie had a really REALLY [and I mean this, so pay attention] REALLY good reason to fake how these emails were 'stolen' by an evil foreign government, i.e. "Russia" when they weren't stolen by the Russians. 6. Donald J. Trump asking a casual question of newly elected Ukrainian president Volodmyr Zelensky about the current location of the DNC server in Ukraine caused every single one of these people to instantly SHIT THEMSELVES and frantically and ham-handedly engineer Trump's first impeachment on trumped up [pun intended] fake whistleblower complaint by a CIA agent named Ciaramella. THEY CANNOT HAVE ANY OF THIS COME OUT. It MUST not come out. If it comes out, Washington DC will fall. So. Take the pieces of the puzzle, draw the picture and put the puzzle together. Assange + Putin are the two people who can take down the 'House of Cards' they oh-so-carefully constructed to hide the truth about the DNC emails and what they directly led investigators to. Get ready for your "Crowdstrike", "Eric Ciamerella", "Shawn Misko", "Michael Carpenter" "Server in Ukraine" and "Seth Rich" pop quiz that I've been telling you was coming for the past several months. Nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G.... Can stop what is coming. **PANIC IN DC**. Have a nice day.
@MattWallace888 - Matt Wallace
60 Minutes interviews Vladimir Putin! Journalism. Megyn Kelly interviews Vladimir Putin! Journalism. Bloomberg interviews Vladimir Putin! Journalism. Oliver Stone interviews Vladimir Putin! Journalism. Tucker Carlson interviews Vladimir Putin! Treason. https://t.co/iE9scTzyzx
reSee.it AI Summary
The state propaganda media is fearful of Tucker's interview with Putin, as evident in their voices. They are afraid of losing control of the narrative. This is the same media that criticized Tucker for interviewing Putin. These journalists were involved in peddling Russian disinformation and sowing chaos in our elections.
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
The state propaganda media is terrified of Tucker's interview with Vladimir Putin. You can hear it in their voices. They are truly afraid of losing control of the narrative. https://t.co/O88aNLijP0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson, a right-wing media figure, is in Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin. Critics argue that Carlson is not a journalist and instead spreads misinformation on behalf of the Kremlin. They believe his work is biased and not aligned with the facts. Some compare his interview with Putin to watching a scandalous show. Furthermore, there is concern that the Republican Party, including Donald Trump, is doing Putin's bidding. Although some see this as Republicans supporting Putin, others believe they are actually supporting Trump, who in turn supports Putin.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Am I
Speaker 1: allowed to say his name?
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. I'm just
Speaker 1: His name is Tucker Carlson, and he is the only American journalist who has been able to interview Putin since the invasion in 2022. Tucker Carlson is not a journalist, not even close. He kind of just walks right into Moscow And presents himself on a silver silver platter to the Kremlin, doing the Kremlin's job of misinforming, disinforming the American population.
Speaker 3: His explanation of why he's doing it, that he's a journalist and he needs to inform people, he can call himself whatever he wants. I think, his work is demonstrable as not being just about giving people information. He has a point of view and often it's It's not aligned with the facts.
Speaker 0: Putin talks to an American friend. The Russian president turning to right wing conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson. And it comes as Kremlin propagandist Tucker Carlson, a leading voice of the right wing disinformation campaign is in Moscow. Ironically, he is there in the name of keeping Americans informed, sitting down for an interview with Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson is neither a journalist, nor a reporter, but he has played one on TV.
Speaker 4: Tucker Carlson still doesn't have a job. He's in Moscow house hunting, I hope. But, no, actually, Tucker is there to interview Vladimir Putin, which is so overtly ridiculous. Tucker Carlson interviewing Vladimir Putin, may not be, mean much to you, but for Trump, this is like watching OnlyFans. This is insane.
I
Speaker 3: You've seen sharp relief A Republican party that is now doing Vladimir Putin's bidding. Donald Trump always did. Yeah. And somebody that we know, that we used to know, going over, doing Vladimir Putin's bidding.
Speaker 2: It was striking again yesterday To see Republicans across the board, and maybe some of them are doing Vladimir Putin's bidding, but really they're doing Donald Trump's bidding, which is Vladimir Putin's bidding.
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
Same vibes: https://t.co/JLAtIUL6vI
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
These are the same "journalists" aka "useful idiots" who did Putin's bidding by peddling Russian disinformation in the Clinton Dossier and sowing chaos in our elections https://t.co/B6ZdZ2iCxt
@FreeStateOfMeme - MemeHeardRoundTheWorld
@RealAlexJones The real reason they don't want Tucker interviewing Puťìñ. Putin on ideological differences between Americans and Rusšìans. https://t.co/pH25DSzlB0
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the ideological differences between the United States and Russia, as well as the historical context of their relationship. They mention the individualistic nature of American society compared to the collectivist nature of Russian society. The conversation touches on the colonization of the American continent and the ethnic cleansing that occurred, as well as the history of slavery in the United States. The speakers highlight the importance of understanding and finding ways to cooperate despite these differences, as there have been periods of unity between the two countries in the past. They emphasize the need to focus on common interests and positive aspects to foster collaboration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Большое уточнение. Просто мой вопрос был не только американо-иранских отношениях, но и о об американо-иранских отношениях, но и об американо-российских отношениях и наличиях, согласны вы с этим или нет, идеологических фундаментальных противоречий, но ключевым вопросам международного права.
Speaker 1: -Перед встречей с Обамой вы меня прямо так и толкаете.
Speaker 0: О Это же очень важно, потому что если страна считает, что ей позволено больше, чем всем остальным, то Я думал,
Speaker 1: что вы не заметите. Нет, вы заметили, удивительно, какой цепкий боец. У нас идеологических противоречий на сегодняшний день практически нет. У нас есть фундаментальные культурологические. В основе американского самосознания лежит индивидуалистическая идея, в основе российского коллективистская.
Вот есть один из исследователей Пушкина, который об этом очень точно и ясно сказал. Вот Унесенные ветром, помните, там главная героиня, -Она говорит, что я не могу себе представить, что я буду голодать. Вот для нее это самое главное. О нашем представлении, о представлении русского человека. Все-таки другие задачи.
Это что-то такое о за горизонт уходящий, что-то такое душевное, что-то такое связанное с Богом, -Понимаете, это немножко разная философия жизни. И поэтому понять друг друга довольно сложно. Но можно.
Speaker 0: Для этого, наверное, есть международное право для
Speaker 1: того, что я общаюсь. Ну да. Ну вот, о США, безусловно, демократическая страна, и она развивалась изначально как демократическое государство. Ведь когда люди начали осваивать этот континент, они приезжали, выстраивали отношения друг с другом и по факту жизни Вынуждены были это делать в диалоге друг с другом, поэтому она изначально рождалась как фундаментальная демократия. Вместе с не будем забывать, что освоение американского континента Вы меня зовуте, прямо в Гепри, мне не хочется об этом говорить.
Но освоение американского континента началось о крупномасштабной этнической чистке, которая не имела себе равных в истории человечества. Ведь европейцы, когда приехали, они этим и занимались, надо прямо об этом сказать. Она, не знаю, вот человечеству не так много известно из истории, ну, скажем, о уничтожении Карфагена римлянами, да, когда они уходили, они даже землю, так вот легенда гласит, солью посыпали, что там ничего не росло, об освоении американского континента европейцами, там землю никто не посыпал, потому что ее использовали, но уничтожали коренное население. После этого американская история знает рабство, и оно так глубоко проникло, ведь Колин Пауэлл еще в своей книжке написал, как ему было тяжело человеку с темным цветом кожи, тяжело было проиграться, как он всегда чувствовал на себе взгляды окружающих, значит, это сидит. Сидит наверняка до сих пор в душах и сердцах людей.
Ведь, ну, вот смотрите, мы знаем, во всяком случае сегодня, очень многие о стороны советского режима. Знаем Сталина, да? Так, как раньше мы его не знали. Знаем, что это был диктатор, тиран. Я очень сомневаюсь, чтобы Сталин весной 45 года, если бы у него была атомная бомба, -Применил бы ее против Германии.
В 41-42 году, когда стоял вопрос о жизни или смерти государства, Может быть, применил, если бы у него было. А в 45-м, когда уже противник все, Сдавался, по сути дела, шансов у него никаких не было. Я сомневаюсь, вот я лично. А американцы применили против Японии, терпящие поражения, причем против неядерного государства? Знаете, вот у нас большие различия между нами, но это ведь
Speaker 0: о -Нормально, когда люди с такими большими
Speaker 1: различиями полны решимости искать пути, которые помогают понимать друг друга. И мне представляется, что у нас нет другого выбора. И, более того, Ведь не случайно, что в критические периоды современной, новейшей истории о России и Соединенные Штаты объединялись и в Первую мировую войну, и во Вторую мировую войну. Вот как бы, как бы не противостояли друг другу, а когда вот гром грянул, произошло объединение. Что-то все-таки объединяет, о какие то обще фундаментальные интересы объединяют, нам нужно нам нужно вот на это обращать внимание, прежде всего.
Знать наши различия, но при этом все-таки обращать внимание на тот позитив, который поможет нам сотрудничать.
@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™
@TuckerCarlson In the Vladimir Putin interview with Tucker Carlson Vladimir Putin talks about the Coup De'tat in Ukraine which involved Joe Biden, George Soros, the CIA and Victoria Nuland. This truth is being hidden from the world. https://t.co/1W7AHktNcb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The truth about U.S. interference in Ukraine reveals a long history of manipulation, dating back to World War II when the CIA collaborated with Ukrainian Nazis. This led to the rise of extremist groups in Ukraine, supported by U.S. interests. The U.S. orchestrated a coup against President Yanukovych in 2014, revealing deep involvement in Ukraine's politics. The ongoing conflict is portrayed as a struggle against a corrupt government influenced by neo-Nazi elements, with Russia's security concerns stemming from NATO's expansion. The situation is framed as part of a broader agenda against nations opposing globalist policies. The need for dialogue among global stakeholders is emphasized, alongside the potential impact of political changes in the U.S. on these dynamics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The first casualty of war is the truth. And if the American people knew the truth about US interference in Ukraine, they might not be so eager to start World War 3. During World War 2, Western Ukraine sided with the Nazis. After the war, the CIA helped Ukrainian Nazis evade the Nuremberg trials and began operating with them within the Ukraine. After decades of CIA infiltration, the Ukrainian People's Movement emerged in 1989 and gave birth to extremist groups, Svoboda, Trident, and Right Sector.
Neo Nazi groups pushing for the ethnic cleansing of Ukraine. Extremist groups cultivated by the CIA, supported by the US state department, and used by the IMF to bring Ukraine to heal. When Yanukovych beat NATO backed Yushchenko in the 2010 elections, his government was being pressured into signing an EU offer. And in today's corrupt world, you're not allowed to say no to the IMF. Funded by Western NGOs associated with George Soros and the CIA, a highly organized color revolution was immediately deployed against Yanukovych.
Leaked phone calls reveal that the US state department was orchestrating this coup d'etat from within the US embassy with support from vice president Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Sullivan's come back to me, VFR saying you need Biden, and I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and to get the deets to stick. So Biden's willing.
Speaker 2: So you had this remarkable phone call where you have these 2 senior officials of the US government apparently talking about a coup or how they were planning to restructure the government of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Fuck the EU. No. Exactly.
Speaker 0: Supporting a criminal war against Russia does not make you a patriot. It makes you a useful idiot of the globalist banking cartel, the very same entities waging war on all of humanity with vaccine passports and experimental jazz.
Speaker 3: The world's biggest investment fund says the war in Ukraine has put an end to globalization as we know it. Larry Fink is the chief executive of BlackRock. Countries and businesses are cutting ties with Russia. They're also imposing sanctions against the country, including cutting off its central bank from its foreign reserves. Fink predicts that with Russia's decoupling from the world, governments and companies will reevaluate their supply chains and even consider reconsider the dependency on other nations.
Speaker 4: See, the truth is slowly gonna come out about what's really going on. And what's really going on is this. The Ukraine has been the center of of the globalists for decades decades decades, 70 years at least. CIA, which is not a good organization, they're the implementers of deep state let's say, they've been working this in the Ukraine for 70 years building up a resistance to everybody and everything. Why?
Because they needed to bring the Soviet Union down, but they also want the resources that are in the Ukraine. That's what this is all about. Particularly Eastern Ukraine, massive natural resources that CIA goes in, gets control of an American business interest. And they're not business. They're just robber barons.
They're not legitimate businessmen. They just want to steal and that's what goes on. And so they're taking that away from, from the, from Russia and the Ukraine. And on top of that, it's the center of the deep state. And so by Vlad Putin going in, he's cutting the head off the snake.
Once the head comes off, the whole beast will die. So that's what's actually going on, folks. So please, they are gonna tell you their stories about, possible nuclear war and Vlad's a bad man. This is the war with Russia that they wanted with Hillary Clinton as president because she lost the whole war against Russia was postponed. This is the plan they always had.
Speaker 5: This has been in the works going back to at least 2015, 2016. It was somewhat setback by the election of Donald Trump in the United States because Trump was not a globalist, but he was opposed to many of these schemes. What we are seeing now is a merger of the great reset, the green new deal, the policies on on COVID, and a number of other aspects of government policy, which is being directed not on behalf of sovereign governments, but against sovereign governments. And this is why we're seeing the situation in Ukraine. And what is Russia's crime?
Putin has asked for 20 years for security guarantees for Russia, and these guarantees include no further eastward expansion of NATO, which was promised to Gorbachev in 1990, which was promised again to Yeltsin in 1994, and yet NATO keeps moving to the very borders of Russia. Now they're talking about, as Zelensky, the president of Ukraine did at the Munich Security Conference, that Ukraine has a right to develop nuclear weapons. And for Putin, Russia's security is directly threatened by 2 aspects of the Ukraine situation. The corruption, which includes prominent Nazis in positions of the defense and security forces of Ukraine, The European Union actually acknowledged in 2018 that the defense and security forces of Ukraine were heavily infiltrated by neo Nazis marching behind the banners of the Ukrainian SS, which joined Hitler in the 19 forties. And when Putin said you need a denazification of Ukraine, he was called crazy.
But the idea of a government, a corrupt government being used not to defend the Ukrainian people's freedom and sovereignty. And I hate to see what's being done to the people of Ukraine right now in this war, but they are the cannon fodder for a NATO and US and British drive to bring down Russia and China. Why? Because they're the 2 leading powers in the world that oppose giving up sovereignty to this Green New Deal and the Great Reset.
Speaker 6: I I don't have too many remedies. The the remedies have to be discussed through dialogue by the stakeholders of our global system, but, I just see the need for such a dialogue, and I see the need for action. I see the need for a great reset.
Speaker 1: To what extent would a reset be brought about by a change in the White House, the election of Joe Biden, for instance?
Speaker 6: I don't know. We first, we shouldn't speculate about the outcome of the election. We will see, beginning of November, and some we we can in any case, we can. And the World Economic Forum, is a very open and that's a open platform to integrate everybody who is willing to address those issues in a spirit which means, to exercise here, true global citizenship.
@acoyne - Andrew Coyne 🇺🇦🇮🇱
Tucker hasn’t been this badly humiliated by an interviewee since Jon Stewart.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a series of posts analyzing the Tucker Carlson and Putin interview, the author highlights various coincidences and connections. They mention the controversy surrounding Russia obtaining Hillary's emails, Trump's statement about Russia finding the missing emails, and Snowden's presence in Moscow. The author points out timestamps and drops that they believe hold significance, such as references to the Hungarian president's resignation and Hungarian military ships. They also note Putin taking off his watch and speculate on its meaning. The author concludes by mentioning Putin's communication with certain individuals and the issue of pedophilia.
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
1) A 🧵 REGARDING THE #TUCKER & #PUTIN INTERVIEW HELD ON FEBRUARY 6, 2024 AND AIRED ON FEBRUARY 8, 2024... "THE 8TH" WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SHOW YOU IS MERELY MY OPINION BASED OFF FACTS AND COINCIDENCES BETWEEN THE INTERVIEW, THE DROPS AND THE LAW OF WAR MANUAL... TAKE FROM IT WHAT YOU WILL... AND PLEASE USE DISCERNMENT AND PROPER PERSPECTIVE... AFTER ALL... WE ARE AT WAR AND PRESIDENT TRUMP "IS" OUR WARTIME PRESIDENT NOW, BEFORE I BEGIN… KEEP IN MIND, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THERE WERE CLAIMS THAT RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED SOME OF HILLARY’S EMAILS DURING THEIR INVESTIGATION INTO THE ROMANIAN HACKER KNOWN AS "GUCCIFER" AROUND THE SAME TIME, DONALD TRUMP MADE A CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT, SAYING, "RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, I HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 EMAILS THAT ARE MISSING." WOULDN’T IT BE FITTING… PUTIN MENTIONS THE EMAILS IN THE INTERVIEW AND I’D BE REMISS IF I DIDN’T MENTION SNOWDEN IS STILL IN MOSCOW! DID YOU CATCH, PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW, TUCKER STOOD OUTSIDE IN THE “SNOW” AND GAVE AN INTRODUCTION WHICH LASTED ROUGHLY 1 MIN 17 SEC?
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
2) DURING HIS INTRODUCTION... HE MENTIONS SHOOTING THE VIDEO ON "FEB 6TH" RIGHT AT THE :06 SEC MARK... AND ADDS EMPHASIS WHEN SAYING IT... LATER IN THE INTERVIEW... PUTIN TELLS TUCKER HE KNOWS ABOUT HIM WANTED TO BE CIA (LIKE HIS FATHER) ONLY... HE IS CIA (IMHO) VIA OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD! DROP #6
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
3) HE THEN GOES ON TO EMPHASIS THE STATEMENT "WE ENEDED IT" AT THE :58 SEC MARK... DROP #58...
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
4) AT THE 1:17 MM HE ENDS HIS INTRODUCTION TO BEGIN THE INTERVIEW… DROP #117 DIDN'T THE HUNGARIAN PRESIDENT JUST RESIGN AMIDST ALLEGATIONS OF PARDONING A CHILD SEX ABUSE ACCOMPLICE...
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
5) WITHIN DROP #117... THERE ARE NUMBERS ON THE "HUNGARIAN" MILITARY SHIPS... 916/981... DROP #916
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
6) DROP #981
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
7) THE OFFICIAL INTERVIEW BEGINS AT THE 1:19 MM AFTER A 1 SEC INTERLUDE OF A SLIDE WITH THE TITLE “THE TUCKER CARLSON INTERVIEW” DROP #119
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
8) 16/17 SEC LATER AT THE 1:35/1:36 MM 6:01:36 (18:01:36) PUTIN BEGINS TO TAKE OFF HIS WATCH... DROPS #16 & #17
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
9) DROPS #135 & #136
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
10) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PUTIN TAKING OFF HIS WATCH IS CRITICAL BC IT FALLS IN LINE WITH THE DROPS POINTED OUT BY MANY OF THE ANONS HERE ON X BUT ALSO BC IT'S AND INDICATION OF HIS "WATCH" ENDING AS FAMOUSLY STATED BY JON "SNOW" THE CHARACTER FROM HIT TV SERIES #GameOfThrones WHEN HE STATED HIS "WATCH" AS LORD COMMANDER HAS ENDED... HAS PUTINS TIME IN THIS "SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION" COME TO AN END? IS THIS WHY HE HANDED OVER THE FOLDER? AND WHAT WAS IN THE FOLDER? ARE WE TO BELIEVE IT IS MERELY A HISTORY OF RUSSIA? OR DOES IT INCLUDE DETAILS ON THE U1 DEAL?🤔
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
11) IN THE “AFTER INTERVIEW”… TUCKER SPLITS THE PRESENTATION BETWEEN HIS TIME AT THE KREMLIN AND HIS TIME AT THE HOTEL AT THE 1:53/1:54 MM… DROPS #153 & #154
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
12) THERE WERE MANY MORE NUGGETS DURING THE INTERVIEW FOR INSTANCE WHEN PUTIN MENTIONED HE SPOKE TO BIDAN BEFORE THE "SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION" BUT DOESN'T RECALL THE LAST TIME HE SPOKE TO HIM... 🤔 AND HE WENT ON TO SAY HE HAS MAINTAINED COMMS WITH CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND THOSE LINES OF COMMS REMAIN "INTACT" AGAIN... THIS IS ALL MY OPINION BASED OFF MY PERSPECTIVE ON THINGS... DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS BUT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT... THINGS ARE DEFINITELY GETTING SPICEY!
@SirCensorLot - SirOliverPollock (KAIZER) 😎 🧐 🤫
13) ADDED BONUSES... PUTINS MEETINGS WITH CLINTON WHEN HE WAS DUPED INTO BELIEVING [THEY} WOULD ALLOW HIM TO JOIN NATO AND 18:01:36 TIMESTAMP DROP... WHAT EXACTLY IS THE NUMBER #1 PROBLEM WITH THE WORLD? PEDOPHILIA! THOSE WHO SCREAM THE LOUDEST! DASTING!!!
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Tucker's first discussion since the Vladimir Putin interview. https://t.co/t4O4NRYSV1
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses their determination to conduct an interview with Vladimir Putin despite obstacles from the US government. They emphasize their shock and anger at the government's surveillance and intrusion into their personal life. The speaker clarifies that their views are constantly evolving based on new evidence and that their main goal is to tell the truth. They express their disappointment in the current US administration's incompetence and criticize the state of American cities compared to Moscow. The speaker believes that compromise is necessary in international relations and highlights the need for leaders to understand history and the consequences of their actions. They criticize the biased media landscape and the erosion of democracy in the US. The speaker concludes by discussing the importance of humility and wisdom in leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'll start in reverse order. Why now? Well, I've been trying for 3 years to do this interview. The US government prevented me from doing it by spying on my text messages and leaking them to the New York Times. And that spooked the Russian government into canceling the interview.
So I've been trying to do this, But my country's intel services were working against me illegally, and that enraged me, because I'm An American citizen. I'm 54. I pay my taxes. I obey the law. And there was no expectation in the America that I grew up in that my government and its Intel services NSA and CIA which were always outwardly focused on our foreign enemies, would be turned inward against American citizens.
And I'm shocked by that, and I'm infuriated by that. And so once I discovered that that was happening, and I confirmed it was happening, and they admitted that they did it, that I was totally determined, monomaniacally dedicated to doing this interview, not simply because I want to know, What Vladimir Putin is like, and what he thinks about a war that is resetting the world, and really, gravely damaging my country's economy. But also because they told me I couldn't, on the basis of illegitimate means, and for no really Clearly stated justification, and I thought, that can't stand. I don't I want to live in a free country. I was born in 1, and I'm going to do whatever small thing I can do to maintain, you know, the society that I I I k.
Speaker 1: I love. You are you are known to be Pro Republican party. Right wing of Republican party. This is what they claim. They said, first, you've been a democrat That's not true.
Became a republican. Okay. Or you are known to be pro Trump, anti Biden. What is truthful in this? And you went to Putin.
Because you are pro Trump and anti Biden?
Speaker 0: I mean, my views are not very interesting. I would I'm not sure how I'd characterize them. They're changing as quickly as the world itself is changing. And I as a matter of principle, I think that, you know, that your view should change when the evidence changes. And assumptions that you had in the past were proven wrong.
That has happened to me virtually every month of my life. If you pay close enough attention, you can rate your own performance, just as if you're betting on sports. You know, I lost That one. And when you do, when it turns out that things you thought were true were lies, you should admit it. So what are my views?
I'm not Tell the truth is my main view, and I plan to do that to the best of my abilities. So, Trump played no role in this whatsoever. There's, obviously, an election in my country Coming, to fruition in November, I have no idea what's going to happen. I think that the current administration is Very obviously incompetent, and the President is senile. That's not an attack.
Everyone knows it. It has now Been confirmed, I would say, this week, in the report that you're all familiar with. But, and that's very sad, But it it had sort of nothing to do with the interview. I wanted to interview Putin because he's the leader of a country that the US government is sort of at war with, though not in a in a declared way.
Speaker 1: Sir, you know your president, president Biden. Well, you've been working in several Media organizations from PBS, CNBC, m m m m m and and and and and and and and and and and and and and
Speaker 0: and and and
Speaker 1: and and and and and and, Fox News, CNN, And you've been covering this field well, and you know the American politicians. And now you've been following Putin, and you did A very lengthy interview with the gentleman. And for sure, to interview them, you did your homework, and you did your research. Comparing The culture, the competence between Vladimir Putin and Biden. How do you see the 2 men now, Running the world.
Speaker 0: I mean, if this were boxing, the fight would be called by the medic. So and I say that as an American. And I'm I don't have another passport. I don't plan to ever leave my country. My family's been there 100 of years, and I love it.
I am a patriotic American. And I grieve when I see that the President is noncompass menace. And that in my country, it is considered very rude to say that. And you sort of wonder, how did you get to place where you have an incompetent president who's driven, not simply the standard of living, but life expectancy downward, And no one feels free to say that. That's not a political observation.
It's a statement of fact, which is provable, empirically. And the most radicalizing thing I would just say, for me, in the 8 days I spent in Moscow, was not simply the leader of the country, who of course is impressive. It's the largest land mass in the world. And it's wildly diverse, linguistically, culturally, religiously. It's hard to run a country like that for 24 years, whether you like it or not.
So an incapable person couldn't do that. He is very capable. And many of you know him, and you know that. What was radicalizing, very shocking, and very disturbing for me, was the city of Moscow, where I'd never been. The biggest City in Europe, 13,000,000 people.
And it is so much nicer than any city in my country. I had no idea. My father spent a lot of time there in the eighties when he worked for the US government and barely had And now, it is so much cleaner, and safer, and prettier, aesthetically. It's architecture, it's food, it's service. Then any city in the United States that you have to and this is non ideological how did that happen?
How did that happen? And at a certain point, I don't think the average person cares as much about abstractions as about the concrete reality of his life. And if you can't use your subway, for As many people are afraid to in New York City, because it's too dangerous, you have to sort of wonder, like, isn't that the ultimate measure of leadership? And that's true by the way, it's radicalizing for an American to go to Moscow. I didn't know that, I've learned it this week.
To Singapore, to Tokyo, to Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Because these cities, no matter how we're told they're run, and on what principles they're run, are wonderful places to live. They don't have rampant inflation, where you're not gonna get raped.
Speaker 1: Sir, excuse me.
Speaker 0: What is that?
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Are you Anti American model?
Speaker 0: No. I am the most pro American. So I'm 54. I was born in 1969. I grew up a country that had cities like Moscow and Abu Dhabi and Dubai and Singapore and Tokyo, and we no longer have them.
And what I have discovered is that's a voluntary choice. As inflation is, as you heard in that fascinating last panel, inflation is the product of choices made mostly by the central bank, not exclusively, but by policy makers. Crime. Same. You don't have to have crime, actually, if you don't put My children don't smoke marijuana at the breakfast table.
Why? Because I won't allow them. It's very simple. It's a short conversation. No.
And you can run your country the same way. We're not gonna put up with that, so don't do it. And people understand that. Filth, graffiti, Paris, one of my favorite cities, New York, one of my favorite cities, are filthy. And part of the reason they're filthy is because people spray paint obscenities on buildings and no cleans it up.
So that encourages more people to do the same. And our policy makers, for some reason, don't notice this. London, another one of my favorite cities. You see English girls begging for drugs on the sidewalk. And I thought to myself, if I'm Boris Johnson, who briefly and very badly ran that country, I would ask myself, like, wait a second.
My countrymen are begging for drugs on the street. Maybe I should do something about that. But now, he'll show up and give some speech about Ukraine and how we need to send, you know, more Bostrombombs to the brain.
Speaker 1: Now you
Speaker 0: What are you doing?
Speaker 1: You mentioned Ukraine. By talking to this gentleman, President Putin, for this lengthy interview, my question is, did you had coffee with him? Did you have any Of the record discussion before the interview? After. Did you feel during the interview or before or after That this man can make or is willing to do a historical compromise, number 1, on the, status of the world With the US, and number 2, about Ukraine, is he a compromiser?
Yes or no?
Speaker 0: Of course. Right? I mean, the leaders of every country on the planet, other than maybe the United States, during the unipolar period, are forced by the nature of their jobs to compromise. Compromise is part of that's what diplomacy is. And he's among those.
His position is clearly hardening. Russia has been rebuffed by the West. I mean, Vladimir Putin, this is not I'm not flacking for Putin. I'm an American. I'm not gonna live in Russia.
I don't love Vladimir Putin. I'm I'm stating the facts. He asked Bill Clinton to join NATO. He tried to make a missile deal
Speaker 1: He mentioned this in the interview. That's correct.
Speaker 0: And he's mentioned it in other forums as well. And NATO said, no, we don't want you. Now if the point of NATO, not if, the point of NATO originally, of course, the post war goal of NATO was to keep the Russians, the Soviets, from coming into Western Europe. It was a bull work against the Russians. So if the Russians actually joined the alliance, that would suggest you have solved the problem and you can move on to do something constructive with your life.
But we refused. And so, I mean, just meditate on that. Go sit in the sauna for an hour and think about what that means.
Speaker 1: Before sitting in the sauna, a question a question now. Final conclusion, you think that Vladimir Putin is eager for a compromise, a compromise like Yalta, Cycasbiko, the Ottoman Empire, several agreements, any international agreement to share Power and to share influence in the world with the west if there is somebody who is willing. And Biden administration wants tension, wants war, want to exert pressure on him so that they can Weaken his economy and weaken his alliance with with China. Is this is what you are reaching from your conclusions?
Speaker 0: My conclusions are in code. I mean, I've been thinking about this for a couple of years. I have a whole new set of data to mull over it. I'm not a genius, so it's going to take me a while to figure out what I think. But at this stage, 4 days later, I would say first of all, Yalta and Sykes Picot are 2 of the worst agreements ever struck.
So I hope whatever comes out of this is nothing like those. But, first things first. Putin wants to get out of this war. He's not going to, become more open to negotiation, the longer this goes on. One of the things we've learned in the course of the last 2 years is that Russia's industrial fill capacity, is a lot more profound than we thought it was.
I mean, Russia's having an e Russia, this country, we're assured, was a Gas station with nuclear weapons, has a pretty easy time making missiles, rockets and artillery shells, whereas NATO doesn't. So we should think about what that means, 1. 2, the West doesn't spend any time, or our policy in Washington spent no time thinking about like, what are the achievable goals here? I have heard personally, US government officials say, well, we're just gonna to return Crimea to Ukraine. Well, you don't need to be a Russia scholar.
So that's not going to happen, short of a nuclear war. That's insane, actually. So even to say something like that reveals that you're a child, you don't understand the area at all, and you have no real sense of what's possible. And so as long as our leaders, and not simply in the US, but NATO, and I really mean Germany, don't like, take the time to learn about possible is we're not gonna get anywhere.
Speaker 1: You think there is a big gap between the depths of understanding the philosophy of history between Biden And between Putin you you see Putin who have studied history and who is very deep in History. And he looks like he gave you a lecture in in for 30 minutes concerning the history of Ukraine and its relationship with The mother, Russia. Does Biden understand the law of action and reaction which moves a country like Russia?
Speaker 0: I can't overstate how incapacitated Joe Biden is. That's not an attack, that is a fact. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. So So these are not decisions Joe Biden is making. But there are capable people around Biden, and I know them.
What they lack is any perspective Tip at all. So a conversation with a US policy maker about the history of the region would begin and end with a conversation about, of course, Chamberlain and Churchill and Hitler. Period. So the American policy maker historical template is tiny. In fact, there's only 1.
And it's a 2 year period in the late 19 thirties. And everything is based on that understanding of history and human nature. And that's insane. And so, actually, American policymakers have convinced themselves that Vladimir Putin is going to take over Poland. And It is not a defense of Putin.
I don't mean to defend Putin. I'm not a fan of Putin's, and I'm not a subject to Putin's. I'm an American. However, there's no evidence that Putin has any interest in his borders. He is the largest country in the world.
And it's very hard to run. They don't need natural resources. There's nothing in Poland he wants. There's nothing he will gain by taking Poland, other than more trouble. That is if you're saying if you could have made Poland, you don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Here is a point a point in the interview when you asked him, are you Are you ready to to invade Poland?
Speaker 0: Are you in expansion of power yet?
Speaker 1: Expansion. Yes. In in in Poland, he said, Only if Poland launched
Speaker 0: a war Of course.
Speaker 1: On Russia. Okay? Ukraine did not launch a war on Russia, and he invaded Ukraine. Why you didn't follow-up on this question?
Speaker 0: I started with that question, actually. But he treated me to 35 minutes of Catherine the Great Okay. And the ruse. But no, the core question is why did he move his forces into Eastern Ukraine. And I watched this from a distant vantage in the United States, and I watched the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, Go to the Munich Security Conference, just days before that, in February of 2022, and say in a public forum, at a press Conference.
To Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, we want you to join NATO. Which is another way of saying, it's a synonym for, we plan to put nuclear weapons un Russian.
Speaker 1: You think there's true abate for him?
Speaker 0: They've been joking. Of course they did.
Speaker 1: They threw
Speaker 0: a bait. And it just tells you how constipated Tricked it and censored. The US media landscape is, that I was the only one who said that. Well, wait a second. The purpose of diplomacy is to reach A peaceful, mutually one hopes beneficial conclusion to a crisis.
So if you're showing up voluntarily at the Munich Security Conference and Hey, Zelensky. Why don't you allow us to put nuclear weapons on Russia's border? You're cruising for a war because you know that's the red line. Because Putin has said that, And any close observer the area already knows?
Speaker 1: Now do you have an explanation, a reasonable explanation, why there is this Anti war and this very negative remarks about this interview from a lot of your colleagues and a lot of politicians in the world.
Speaker 0: One of the ways that I think I'm different is, I don't like the Internet. And, I haven't seen any of the reaction. And I would imagine, You know, I'm not the most popular person among my colleagues in the United States. I wouldn't have dinner with them anyway, so it's no great loss. But, You know, they I I can't imagine what their motives would be.
I didn't go to Russia, of course, to promote Vladimir Putin. And if I if that was my purpose, I'd say so, because I'm not embarrassed. I went because I felt that most Americans, in whose name all of this is being done, don't really know what's happening, and they know nothing about the guy they're supposedly at war with, unofficially. And I just felt that my job, if I have a job in this world, is to bring information to people so they can decide. And so I wanted to do the longest interview I could with Vladimir Putin, that contained the most amount of Vladimir Putin talking, not me grandstanding about what a great person I am.
When an American journalist interviews someone like Vladimir Putin, the whole point of the interview I'm a good person and you're not. And that interview was aimed at his colleagues in the newsrooms in the United States. I'm a good person. Why are you such a bad person? You're committing genocide.
Okay. That's not fruitful, and that's certainly not my role. I care what God thinks of me, what my wife thinks of me, and what my 4 children think of me, and that's all I care about. So I don't need to prove that I'm a good person. Wanna hear Vladimir Putin talk, so people in my country can assess what's happening.
Speaker 1: I That's it. I'll I'll I'll use the devil's advocate. But advocate away. Yes. Okay.
I'll tell you. You you should challenge in in in the rules of an interview, and you're a master in in your in your business. It's not for me to give you a lecture about that, but you should challenge some ideas. For instance, You you didn't talk about freedom of speech in in Russia. You did not talk about Navalny, About assassinations, about about the restrictions on, opposition in the coming Elections.
Speaker 0: I didn't talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about. Why?
Speaker 1: Because, yes. Because those
Speaker 0: are covered. And because I have spent my life talking to people who run countries, in various countries, and have concluded the following, that every leader kills people, including my leader. Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people.
Sorry. That's why I wouldn't want to be a leader. That Press restriction is universal in the United States. I know because I've lived it. I've, you know, asked my phone, you know, I've had a lot of jobs.
And I've done this for 34 years, and I know how it works. And, there's more censorship in Russia than there is in the United States, but there's a great deal in the United States. And so, you know, at a certain point, it's like people can decide whether they think, you know, what what countries they think are better, what systems they think are better. I just wanna know what he thinks. That was the whole point.
Speaker 1: Yes. I was very surprised, about an inappropriate remark. I I don't think it is Contains any of the, what you can call John TS or, niceties from, missus Clinton when she mentioned A phrase about you, I don't want to repeat it.
Speaker 0: Oh, you're not gonna hurt my feelings. Don't worry.
Speaker 1: Well well, gentleman, she she called this gentleman, just honorable Gentlemen that he is playing the role of a you say it.
Speaker 0: I I didn't see it.
Speaker 1: You didn't see it.
Speaker 0: She's a child. I don't listen to her.
Speaker 1: How's Libya doing? No. No. No. No.
No. Oh, okay. She she said, the the the the the the useful idiot. And and and if you see the interview, that has nothing to do with this at all. He was trying to get a testimony about the world as Putin sees it.
And this is Exactly what we need to know, how this man thinks. Either you consider him an enemy or you consider him a friend or you consider him a dictator, but you you should understand how the man Thanks. Now the You put
Speaker 0: it better than I could. That's a you just described my motive right there.
Speaker 1: Okay, sir. Now now now the the the question is if this is the that is that, as they say in the United States, and this is The the the, the power of media and the the way the media is becoming very biased in a deep state like America, where are we going in the model of democracy in the world?
Speaker 0: Media information In a free country is a counterbalance against entrenched power. Not just government power, but the economic power, business. It was, in my country, Constitutionally, it is designed to be to serve as a counterbalance to that. So if sources of information, media outlets To align with entrenched power, then you have a powerless population, and it's totalitarian. And that is very quickly, the direction the United States is headed.
And and I do think that technology abets this progression, and machine learning, especially. And so it's a perilous moment, if if it, you know, were Percie, purportedly. And a prerequisite for democracy is information, so that the electric can make up its mind and decide who to choose. And so if you don't have access to information, you don't have democracy. And we're in this sort of weird spiral, where our leaders lecture us ever more about democracy and how sacred it is, Even as they choke it off, choke it to death.
And so I think the people who provide information, who bring the facts to the public, have a critical role to play. And right now It's difficult. I'm not facing any great I I don't mean to cast myself as a hero. I'm certainly not a hero at all. But I do think it's Tougher and tougher to do that.
And that means we have a greater obligation to do it.
Speaker 1: Sir, do you have an explanation? Till this moment, since the Gaza Events took place till now. Nobody came out and said, how on earth the United States of America Is vetoing the the stoppage of, fire, how a country would veto Not to continue war. How how somebody is against stopping a war.
Speaker 0: The United States is, for this moment, is the most powerful country in the history of the world. So if you were to frame this in terms we're all familiar with, which are the most basic terms, the terms of the family, the United States would be DAP, would be the father. And the father's sacred obligation is to protect his family and to restore peace within his walls. So if I come home fortunately, if I come home from work and 2 of my kids are fighting, what's the first thing I do? Even before I assess why they're fighting, before I gather the facts and know what's happening
Speaker 1: I stop the fight.
Speaker 0: Stop fighting.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: So if I come home and I have 2 kids fighting and I say, go, go, beat the crap out of them. I am evil. Because I violated The most basic duty of fatherhood, which is to bring peace, because I have the power. I'm the only one who can bring peace. And so if you see a nation with Some power, abetting war for its own sake.
You have a leadership that has no moral authority, that is illegitimate. And I mean that too. And I and I not I'm not even referring to any specific region or conflict. I mean, generally. And I'm deeply offended by that.
Deeply. And and it's something that I try to express, and I'm often called a traitor for saying that. It's the opposite. I say that because I believe in the United States. I think it's a moral it has been a morally superior country.
And if we allow our leaders to use our power to spread destruction for its own sake, That is shameful. It's a binary. Okay? It's a it's a black and white. It's a 0 and a 1.
You are either creating or you're destroying. You're improving or you're degrading. And that's how you know whether something is good or bad, whether it's virtuous or evil. If you just judge the fruits. By its fruits, you will know it.
And I and I'm very distressed and concerned that we are entering an era where this awesome force for good is instead being used for evil.
Speaker 1: Two quick questions because I ran out of time. First question is, now in the American elections, we have probabilities. Yes. Either it's Biden and Trump, or Biden and somebody else not Trump, Or no Biden and no Trump and circumstances or fate get us 2 different People representing a republican or democrats. What do you think where are we going to reach?
Coming 19th November, Who will be running the show?
Speaker 0: I haven't. Honestly, I haven't the faintest idea. But I think there's volatility ahead in our political sphere. When clearly, there is because
Speaker 1: I I like you when you said, I I don't have an an idea. You you have this courage of to say that you don't know. You were telling me this morning that what one of the things which you like very much about here, our our president, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, god bless him, when you ask him a question, If he doesn't have an answer, he tell me, actually, I don't know the answer of this question.
Speaker 0: 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 life spent interviewing people. I've never heard a single one of them say, you know, I don't I don't know the answer. It's very complicated. I haven't figured 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. And in the United States, we had a period where we were sort of, you know, 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 Muslim, Jew, She's a Buddhist. I divide the world between people who believe they're God, and people who know they're not. And 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, that you can't foresee 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. You will get a lot of people killed, when you when you have those false beliefs, in my opinion.
Speaker 1: By by this note, mister Carlson, thank you very much for Giving us this chance to come for the first time after your great interview To talk to the world through this podium and this country and my humble sir. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you for having me. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one gonna say Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
reSee.it AI Summary
Tucker Carlson interviewed Vladimir Putin because US Intel Agencies said he couldn't. Carlson criticizes Joe Biden, calling him incompetent, senile, and unfit for office. Watch the full video below. #TuckerCarlson #TuckerPutin #TuckerPutinInterview
@govt_corrupt - govt.exe is corrupt
#BREAKING: Tucker Carlson says the main reason he interviewed Vladimir Putin last week is because US Intel Agencies said he couldn't. When comparing the 2 Presidents, Carlson says Joe Biden is incompetent, senile and clearly unfit for office! Watch the full video below... #TuckerCarlson #TuckerPutin #TuckerPutinInterview
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker explains that they were determined to do the interview with Vladimir Putin because they were prevented from doing so by their own government. They express shock and anger at the US government's spying and interference. The speaker clarifies that their views are constantly evolving based on evidence and that their main view is to tell the truth. They deny being pro-Trump or anti-Biden and state that their goal was to gather information about Putin and the current state of affairs. They also discuss the state of media bias and the importance of free speech.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The I'll start in reverse order. Why now? Well, I've been trying for 3 years to do this interview. The US government prevented me from doing it by spying on my text messages and leaking them to The New York Times, and that spooked the Russian government into canceling the interview. So I've been trying to do this, But my country's intel services were working against me illegally, and that enraged me, because I'm an American citizen, I'm 54, I pay my taxes, I obey the law.
And there was no expectation in the America that I grew up in that my government and its Intel services, NSA and CIA, which were always outwardly focused on our foreign enemies, would be turned inward against American citizens. And I'm shocked by that, and I'm infuriated by that. And so, once I discovered that that was happening, and I confirmed it was happening, and they admitted that they did it, then I was totally determined, monomaniacally dedicated to doing this interview, not simply because I want to know What Vladimir Putin is like and what he thinks about a war that is resetting the world and really gravely damaging my country's economy. But also because they told me I couldn't, on the basis of illegitimate means, and for no really clearly stated justification. And I thought, that can't stand.
I don't I want to live in a free country. I was born in 1, and I'm going to do whatever small thing I can do to maintain, you know, this society that I I I Okay. I love.
Speaker 1: You are you are known to be Pro Republican party. Right wing of Republican party. This is what they claim. They said, first, you've been a democrat. That's not true.
You became a republican. Okay. Or you are known to be pro Trump, anti Biden. What is truthful in this? And you went to Putin.
Because you are pro Trump and anti Biden?
Speaker 0: I mean, my views are not very interesting. I would I'm not sure how I assume, they're changing as quickly as the world itself is changing. And I, as a matter of principle, I think that, you know, that your view should change when the evidence changes. And assumptions that you had In the past, you're proven wrong. That has happened to me virtually every month of my life.
If you pay close enough attention, you can rate your own performance, just as if you're betting on sports. You know, I lost that one. And when you do, when it turns out that things you thought were true were lies, you should admit it. So What are my views? I'm not certain.
Tell the truth is my main view, and I plan to do that to the best of my abilities. So, Trump played no role in this whatsoever. There's, obviously, in my country. Coming to fruition in November, I have no idea what's going to happen. I think that the current administration is Very obviously incompetent, and the President is senile.
That's not an attack. Everyone knows it. It has now Been confirmed, I would say, this week, in the report that you're all familiar with. But, and that's Very sad. But it it had sort of nothing to do with the interview.
I wanted to interview Putin because he's the leader of a country that the US government is Sort of at war with, though not in the in a declared way.
Speaker 1: Sir, you know your president, president Biden. Well
Speaker 0: Yes. I do.
Speaker 1: You've been working and several media organizations from PBS, CNBC, m NBC, Fox News, CNN, and you have been covering this field well, and you know the American politicians. And now you've been following Putin, and you did a very lengthy interview with this gentleman. And for sure, To interview them, you did your homework, and you did your research. Comparing the culture, the competence Between Vladimir Putin and Biden, how do you see the 2 men now, running the world?
Speaker 0: Mean, if this were boxing, the fight would be called by the medic. So and I say that as an American. And I don't have another passport. I don't plan to ever leave my country. My family's been there 100 of years, and I love it.
I am a patriotic American. And I grieve when I see that the president is non composites menace. And that, in my country, it is considered very rude to say that. And you, sort of, wonder, how did you get to a place where you have an incompetent president who's driven, not simply the standard of living, but life expectancy downward, and no one feels free to say that. That's not a political observation.
It's a statement of fact, which is provable, empirically. And the most radicalizing thing I would just say, for me, in the 8 days I spent in Moscow, was not simply the leader of the country, who, of course, is impressive. It's the largest land mass in the world. And it's wildly diverse, linguistically, culturally, religiously. It's hard to run a country like that for 24 years, whether you like it or not.
So an incapable person couldn't do that. He is very capable. And many of you know him, and you know that. What was radicalizing, very shocking and very disturbing for me, was the city of Moscow, where I'd never been, the biggest City in Europe, 13,000,000 people. And it is so much nicer than any city in my country.
I had no idea. My father spent a lot there. In the eighties, when you worked for the US government, it barely had electricity. And now, it is so much cleaner and safer and prettier, aesthetically. It's architecture.
It's food. It's service. Then any country city in the United States that you have to and this is non ideological. How did that happen? How did that happen?
And at a certain point, I don't think the average person cares as much about abstractions as about the concrete reality of his life. And if you can't use your subway, for example, as many people are afraid to in New York City because it's too dangerous, you have to sort of wonder, like, isn't that the ultimate measure of leadership? And that's true by the way, it's radicalizing for an American to go to Moscow. I didn't know that. I've learned it this week.
To Singapore, to Tokyo, to Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Because these cities, no matter how we're told they're run and on what principles they're run, are wonderful places to live. They don't have rampant inflation, where you're not gonna get raped. Sir, excuse me. What is that?
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Are you Anti American model?
Speaker 0: No. I am the most pro American. So I'm 54. I was born in 1969. I grew up in a country that had cities like Moscow and Abu Dhabi and Dubai and Singapore and Tokyo.
And we no longer have them. And what I have discovered is, that's a voluntary choice. As inflation is, as you heard in that fascinating last panel, inflation is the product of Choices made mostly by the central bank, not exclusively, but by policy makers. Crime, same. You don't have to have crime, actually.
If you don't put my children don't smoke marijuana at the breakfast table. Why? Because I won't allow them. It's very simple. It's a short conversation.
No. And you can run your country the same way. We're not gonna put up with that, so don't do it. And people understand that. Filth, graffiti, Paris, one of my favorite cities, New York, one of my favorite cities are filthy.
And part of the reason they're filthy is because people Spray paint obscenities on buildings, and no one cleans it up. So that encourages more people to do the same. And our policy makers, for some reason, don't notice London, another one of my favorite cities. You see English girls begging for drugs on the sidewalk. And I thought to myself, if I'm Boris Johnson, who briefly and very badly ran that country, I would ask myself, like, wait a second.
My countrymen are begging for drugs on the street. Maybe I should do something about that. But now, he'll show up give some speech about Ukraine and how we need to send, you know, more cluster bombs to the brave Ukrainians. What are you doing?
Speaker 1: You mentioned Ukraine. By talking to this gentleman, president Putin, for this lengthy interview, My question is, did you had coffee with him? Did you have any, off the record discussion before the interview? After. Did you feel during the interview or before or after that this man can make Or is willing to do a historical compromise, number 1, on the, status of the world with the US, And number 2, about Ukraine, is he a compromiser?
Yes or no?
Speaker 0: Of course. Right? I mean, the leaders of every tree on the planet, other than maybe the United States, during the unipolar period, are forced by the nature of their jobs to compromise. Compromise is part of that's what diplomacy is. And he's among those.
His position is clearly hardening. Russia has been rebuffed by the West. I mean, Vladimir Putin, this is not I'm Flacking for Putin. I'm an American. I'm not gonna live in Russia.
I don't love Vladimir Putin. I'm I'm stating the facts. He asked Bill Clinton to join NATO. He has Tried to make a missile deal
Speaker 1: He mentioned this in the interview. That's correct.
Speaker 0: And he's mentioned it in other forums as well. And NATO said, no. We don't want you. Now if the point of NATO not if. The point of NATO, originally, of course, the post war goal of NATO was to keep the Russians, the Soviets, from coming into Western Europe.
It was a bulwark against the Russians. So if the Russians actually join the alliance, that would suggest you have solved the problem and you can move on to do something constructive with your life. But we refused. And so, I mean, just meditate on that. Go sit in the sauna for an hour and think about what that means.
Speaker 1: Before sitting in the sauna, a question A question now. Final conclusion, you think that Vladimir Putin is eager for a compromise, A compromise like Yalta, Sykes Picot, the Ottoman Empire, several agreements. Any international agreement to share power and to share influence in the world with the west, if there is somebody who is willing. And Biden administration wants tension, wants war, want to exert pressure on him So that they can, weaken his economy and weaken his alliance with with China. Is this is what you are reaching from your conclusions?
Speaker 0: My conclusions are inchoate. I mean, I've been thinking about this for a couple of years. I have a whole new set of data to mull over it. I'm not a genius, so it's going to take me a while to figure out what I think. But at this stage, 4 days later, I would say, first of all, Yalta and Sykes Picot are 2 of the, you know, worst agreements ever struck.
So I hope whatever comes out of this is nothing like those. But first things first, Putin wants to get out of this war. He's not going to become more open to negotiation the longer this goes on. One of the things we've learned in the course of the last 2 years is that Russia's industrial Capacity is a lot more profound than we thought it was. I mean, Russia's having an e Russia, this country, we were assured, was a Gas station with nuclear weapons, has a pretty easy time making missiles, rockets and artillery shells, whereas NATO doesn't.
So we should think about what that means, 1. 2, the West doesn't spend any time, or our policy makers in Washington spend no time thinking about, like, what are the achievable goals here? I have heard personally. US government officials say, well, we're just gonna have to return Crimea to Ukraine. Well, you don't need to be a a Russia scholars show that's not going to happen short of a nuclear war.
That's insane, actually. So even to say something like that reveals that you are a child, you don't understand the area at all, And you have no real sense of what's possible. And so as long as our leaders, and not simply in the US, but NATO, and I really mean Germany, Don't, like, take the time to learn about what's possible if we're not gonna get anywhere.
Speaker 1: You think there is a big gap between the depths It's of understanding the philosophy of history between Biden and between Putin. You you see Putin who have Studied history and who is very deep in history. And he looks like he gave you a lecture in in for 30 minutes concerning The history of Ukraine and its relationship with the mother, Russia. Does Biden understand The law of action and reaction which moves a country like Russia?
Speaker 0: I I can't overstate how incapacitated Joe Biden is. That's not an attack. That is a fact. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. So these are not decisions Joe Biden is making.
But there are capable people around Biden, and I know them. What they lack is any perspective at all. So a conversation with a US policy maker about the history of the region would begin and end with conversation about, of course, Chamberlain and Churchill and Hitler. Period. So the American policymaker historical template is tiny.
In fact, there's only 1. And it's a 2 year period, it's in the late 19 thirties, and everything is based on that understanding of history and human nature. And that's insane. And so, actually, American policy makers have convinced themselves that Vladimir Putin is gonna take over Poland. And it is not a defense of Putin.
Don't mean to defend Putin. I'm not a fan of Putin's, and I'm not a subject to Putin's. I'm an American. However, there's no evidence that Putin has any interest In expanding his borders, he is the largest country in the world, and it's very hard to run. They don't need natural resources.
There's nothing in Poland he wants. There's nothing he will gain by taking Poland other than more trouble. That is if you're saying if you're gonna invade Poland you don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Here is a point a point in the interview when you asked him, are you Are you ready to to invade Poland?
Speaker 0: Are you in expansion of power? Yes.
Speaker 1: Expansion. Yes. In in in Poland, he said, Only if Poland launched a war Of course. On Russia. Okay?
Ukraine did not launch a war on Russia, and he invaded Ukraine. Why you didn't follow-up on this question?
Speaker 0: I started with that question, actually. But he treated me to 35 minutes of Catherine the Great Okay. And the ruse. But, no. The core question is why did he move His forces into Eastern Ukraine.
And I watched this from a distant vantage in the United States, and I watched the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, Go to the Munich Security Conference, just days before that, in February of 2022, and say in a public forum, at Press conference to Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, we want you to join NATO. Which is another way of saying, it's a synonym for, we plan to put nuclear weapons on Russia.
Speaker 1: You think there's 2 abates for Oh, they did.
Speaker 0: Of course they did.
Speaker 1: They still did.
Speaker 0: And everyone and it just tells you how constipated and restricted and censored the US media landscape is. That I was the only one who said that. Well, wait a second. The purpose of diplomacy is to reach a peaceful, mutually one hopes beneficial conclusion to a crisis. So if you're showing up voluntarily at the Munich Security Conference and saying, hey, Zelensky, why don't you allow us to put nuclear weapons on Russia's border?
You're cruising for a war because you know that's the red line. Because Putin has said that and any close observer of the area already knows that.
Speaker 1: Now do you have an explanation, a reasonable explanation, Why there is this anti war and this very negative remarks about this interview from A lot of your colleagues and a lot of politicians in the world?
Speaker 0: One of the ways that I I think I'm different is I don't like the Internet. And, I haven't seen any of the reaction. And I would imagine, you know, I'm not the most popular person among my colleagues in the United States. I wouldn't have dinner with them anyway, so it's no great loss. But, you know, they I I can't imagine what their motives would be.
I didn't go to Russia, of course, to promote Vladimir Putin. And if I if that was my purpose, I'd say so, because I'm not embarrassed. I went because I felt that Most Americans, in whose name all of this is being done, don't really know what's happening, and they know nothing about the guy they're supposedly at war with, unofficially. And I just felt that my job, if I have a job in this world, is to bring information to people so they can decide. And so I wanted to do the longest interview I could with Vladimir Putin, that contained the most amount of Vladimir Putin talking, not me grandstanding about what a great person I am.
When an American journalist interviews someone like Vladimir Putin, the whole point of the interview I'm a good person, you're not. And that interview was aimed at his colleagues in the newsrooms in the United States. I'm a good person. Why are you such a bad person? You're committing genocide.
Okay. That's not fruitful, and that's certainly not my role. I care what God thinks of me, what my wife thinks of me, and what my 4 children think of me, and that's all I care about. So I don't need to prove that I'm a good I wanna hear Vladimir Putin talk so people in my country can assess what's happening.
Speaker 1: I I That's it. I'll I'll I'll use the devil's advocate.
Speaker 0: But advocate away.
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. I'll tell you. You you should challenge in in in the rules of an interview. And you're a master in in your in your business.
It's not for me to give you a lecture about that. But you should challenge some ideas. For instance, You you didn't talk about freedom of speech in in Russia. You did not talk about Navalny, about Assassinations about about the restrictions on, opposition in the coming Elections.
Speaker 0: I didn't talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about.
Speaker 1: Why? Yes. Because those are
Speaker 0: covered, and because I have spent my life talking Into people who run countries in various countries and have concluded the following. That every leader kills people, including my leader. Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people.
Sorry. That's why I wouldn't wanna be a leader. That press restriction is universal in the United States. I know because I've lived it. I've, you know, asked my You know, I've had a lot of jobs, and I've done this for 34 years, and I know how it works.
And, there's more censorship ship in Russia than there is in the United States, but there's a great deal in the United States. And so, you know, at a certain point, it's like people can decide whether they think, You know, what what countries they think are better? What systems they think are better?
Speaker 1: Sir, I I I
Speaker 0: I just wanna know what he thinks. That was the whole point.
Speaker 1: Yes. I was very surprised about an inappropriate remark, I I don't think it is contains any of the, what you can call John Ts, our, nice days from, missus Clinton, when she mentioned a phrase about you. I don't want to repeat it. Oh, you're not kinda
Speaker 0: hurt my feelings.
Speaker 1: Don't worry. Well well, gentlemen, she she called this gentleman, dishonorable gentleman, that he is playing the role of You see it.
Speaker 0: I I didn't see it.
Speaker 1: You didn't see it.
Speaker 0: She's a child. I don't listen to her.
Speaker 1: No. No. How's Libya doing? No. No.
No. No. No. Okay. She she said, the the the the the the the useful idiot.
And and and if you see the interview, that has nothing to do with this at All he was trying to get a a a testimony about the world as Putin sees it, and this is exactly what we need to know, how this man thinks. Either you consider him An enemy, or you consider him, a a friend, or you consider him, a dictator, But you you should understand how the man thinks. Now the You put it better than
Speaker 0: I could. That's a you just described my motive right there.
Speaker 1: Okay, sir. Now now now now the the the the question is, if this is That is that, as they say in the United States. And this is the the the, the power of media. And the the way the media is becoming very biased in a deep state like America. Where are we going in The model of democracy in the world.
Speaker 0: Media information in a free country is a counterbalance against entrenched power. Not just government power, but the economic power, business. It was dis in my country, constitutionally, it is designed to be to serve as a counterbalance to that. So if sources of information, media outlets, align with entrenched power, then you have a powerless population, and it's totalitarian. And that is very quickly the direction the United States is headed.
And I do think that technology abets this progression, and machine learning, especially. And so it's a perilous moment if if it, you know, were a democracy, purportedly. And a prerequisite for democracy is information, so that the electric can make up its mind and decide who to choose. And so if you don't have access to information, you don't have democracy. And we're in this sort of weird Spiral, where our leaders lecture us ever more about democracy and how sacred it is, even as they choke it off, choke it to death.
And so I think the people who provide information, who bring facts to the public, have a critical role to play. And right now, it's difficult. I'm not facing any great I I don't mean to catch myself as a hero. I'm certainly not a hero at all. But I do think it's tougher and tougher to do that, and that means we have a greater obligation to do it.
Speaker 1: Sir, do you have an explanation? Till this moment, since the Gaza events took place, till now, nobody came out and said, how on earth the United States of America is vetoing The the stoppage of, fire, how a country would veto Not to continue war. How how how somebody is against stopping a war.
Speaker 0: The United States is, for this moment, is the most powerful country in the history of the world. So if you were to frame this in terms we're all familiar with, which are the most basic terms, the terms of the family, the United States would be dad, would be the father. And the father's Sacred obligation is to protect his family and to restore peace within his walls. So if I come home I have 4 children. If I come home from work and 2 of my kids are fighting, What's the first thing I do?
Even before I assess why they're fighting, before I gather the facts and know what's happening.
Speaker 1: I stop the facts.
Speaker 0: I stop fighting. Yes. So if I come home and I have 2 kids fighting, and I say, go. Go. Put the crap out I am evil.
Because I violated the most basic duty of fatherhood, which is to bring peace. Because I I have the power. I'm the only one who can bring peace. And so if you see a nation with awesome power abetting war for its own sake, You have a leadership that has no moral authority, that is illegitimate. And I mean that too.
And I and I not I'm not even referring to any specific region or conflict. I mean, generally. And I'm deeply offended by that, deeply. And and it's something that I try to express, and I'm often called a traitor For saying that, it's the opposite. I say that because I believe in the United States.
I think it's a moral it has been a morally superior country. And if we allow our leaders to use our power to spread destruction for its own sake, that is shameful. It's a binary. Okay? It's a it's a black and white.
It's a 0 one a one. You are either creating or you're destroying. You're improving or you're degrading. And that's how you know whether something is good or bad, whether it's virtuous or evil. You just judge the fruits.
By its fruits, you will know it. And I and I'm very distressed and concerned that we are entering an era where this awesome force for good is instead being used for evil.
Speaker 1: Two quick questions because I ran out of time. First question is, now in the American elections, We have probabilities. Yes. Either it's Biden and Trump, or Biden and somebody else not Trump, Or no Biden and no Trump and circumstances or fate get us 2 different people representing a Republican or Democrats. What do you think where are we going to reach?
Coming 19th November, Who will be running the show?
Speaker 0: I haven't. Honestly, I I haven't the faintest idea. But I I think there's volatility ahead in our political sphere. Mean, clearly, there is because
Speaker 1: I I like you when you said I I don't have an an idea. You you have this courage of to say that you don't know. You were telling me this morning that what one of the things which you like very much about here, our our president Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, god bless him, when you ask him a question, If he doesn't have an answer, he tell me, actually, I don't know the answer of this question.
Speaker 0: 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 life spent interviewing people. I've never heard a single one of them say, you know, I don't 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 the pure sign of wisdom. Because wisdom grows from humility. Wisdom grows from the recognition that you are not God. And in the United States, we had a period where we were sort of, you know, 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 Muslim, Jew, and Christian, or Buddhist. I divide the world between people who believe they're god and people who know they're not. And 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, that you can't foresee 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 through, you know, 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. You will get a lot of people killed, when you when you have those false beliefs, in my opinion.
Speaker 1: By by this note, mister Carlson, thank you very much for Giving us this chance to come for the first time after your great interview To talk to the world through this podium and this country and my humble sir. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you for having me. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@Breaking911 - Breaking911
Tucker Carlson is ‘un-American’ for interviewing Putin! Meanwhile, CBS News sits down with Hamas terrorists. https://t.co/zpEveJrOXt
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Hamas commander in the West Bank recruits young fighters, justifying violence as reclaiming their land from Israel. Despite casualties, he believes in armed struggle. An Israeli negotiator warns that attacking Hamas only strengthens them, suggesting peace and sharing the land as a solution. The cycle of violence will end when Israelis leave, but Palestinians also deserve freedom and rights for a new beginning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We met a Hamas commander at an undisclosed location in the West Bank. Are you a wanted man?
Speaker 1: I am. Indeed.
Speaker 0: Calling himself Abu Abed, he joined 9 years ago when he was just 16. Almost half that time was spent in jail. Now he is a Hamas recruiter. Are you seeing more young people joining Hamas here in the West Bank since October 7?
Speaker 1: For sure, all the Palestinian people are standing by Hamas. I give the fighters guidance. When Israeli forces enter, I tell them what to do and how to open fire.
Speaker 0: On October 7th, women and children were murdered.
Speaker 1: We see death every single day. Israel lost what? 1000 or 2000 people killed? That's nothing.
Speaker 0: But it doesn't make it right to kill women and children.
Speaker 1: This is my land. My land. We repeatedly told Israel to get out peacefully, and they refused. So it's only normal that we take it back by force.
Speaker 0: He blindly repeats the blatant lie that no civilians were killed by Hamas on October 7th.
Speaker 1: We don't fight civilians. We have always fought against the army.
Speaker 0: Nor is there remorse for the more than twenty 8,000 Palestinians killed, nearly 2 thirds of them women and children in Israel's bombardment of Gaza. You had to have known that that would have been Israel's response, that Palestinians would suffer as a result. So is there any regret?
Speaker 1: We are not pleased with that, but this is the path of the armed struggle.
Speaker 0: Gershon Baskin is a veteran Israeli hostage negotiator. He knows Hamas well.
Speaker 2: The more that Israel hits Hamas, the stronger Hamas will grow.
Speaker 0: And as for Netanyahu's repeatedly stated aim of eliminating Hamas
Speaker 2: There is no elimination of Hamas. Israel can defeat Hamas militarily, but the only way you you defeat an idea and an ideology is by providing a better idea and a better ideology.
Speaker 0: Baskin points out that for decades, Palestinians have been living under the boot of Israeli occupation October 7th, but allowing Israelis to believe the state's October 7th, but allowing Israelis to believe the status quo could remain.
Speaker 2: He convinced the Israeli people and the world that Israel can occupy another people for 56 years and expect to have peace or lock 2,200,000 people in a territory like Gaza with 80% poverty and expect to have quiet. You can't have it all. We gotta share this place.
Speaker 0: So where does this all end? All this killing, all this suffering.
Speaker 1: The killing and the suffering ends when the Israelis walk out of our land. But if they decide to stay, we shall continue to fight. And if I die, somebody else will take my place.
Speaker 0: Basquin told us he finds it hard to believe Hamas will continue to run Gaza after the war, but asked the same question, where it all ends, when Palestinians are also seen as people with hopes and dreams.
Speaker 2: They're not different from other people. They deserve to live in freedom too. The same right to the same rights. That's the basis of a new beginning. The the same right to the same rights.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
When @TuckerCarlson interviewed Vladimir Putin, journalism suddenly became a CRIME in the eyes of other journalists. So, I sat down with Tucker to hear his side of the story. https://t.co/opRfWjMNlW
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, Tucker Carlson travels to Moscow to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin, defending the importance of open dialogue and journalists' ability to interview leaders from all sides. He criticizes the mismanagement of American cities, the decline in living standards, and the intentional destruction of the country by its leaders. Carlson highlights the need to prioritize American interests, restore order, and questions the effectiveness of NATO while expressing concerns about the erosion of American sovereignty. The speaker also discusses the power of communication, the need for change in the US, the influence of the media, the Ukraine conflict, and the dangers of the military. They express frustration with politicians and the ruling class, emphasizing the importance of focusing on fundamental issues. The speaker mentions their interview with Putin and their lack of concern for Navalny's death, advocating for independent thinking and prioritizing what truly matters for the country's well-being.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tucker Carlson just did something that no other western journalist in the world has either been willing or able to do in a very long time. He traveled to Moscow to speak to Russian president Vladimir Putin. And right on track, cue the collective outrage. Tucker Carlson is dangerous. He's a Putin lover.
Will they ban him from coming home? Is the EU sanctioning him? The news was actually kind of hilarious, and it still is. Take any war in history. I don't care with whom or which leader and any journalist worth their salt.
They'd be chomping at the bit to interview the leaders on both sides, but not this one. Why? Why is journalism now a crime to journalists? There's been, something that the media has now forgotten. Maybe the governments have never known it, but it is that open and free dialogue is the foundation for free society.
It is also the foundation that peace can be built upon. Talk with everyone. You don't have to trust them, even like them, but talk to them, understand where they're coming from. It's all very basic. And if anyone currently is criticizing Tucker for interviewing a person who is the leader of the country, we're currently involved with a shadow war, well, maybe you should just ask Tucker, why did you do it?
Why did you go? What did you mean by the showing us the subway and every what did what did you mean by that? What have you learned? And what does it mean all going forward? That's what we're going to do.
We're gonna ask him right now for his first interview back from Russia directly. To Americans, please welcome Tucker Carlson. Before we get to Tucker, sometimes the solutions we seek to fix a problem are easy But when you're living with pain, it isn't the case. It isn't. It doesn't feel that way.
For years, I lived with horrible pain in my hands. I searched up and down for anything that would work. I couldn't do this. It was too painful for me. I I couldn't write with a pencil.
I like to write. I like to do art. I'm a painter. I thought that was all behind me, but the solution was Relief Factor, and I never thought it would work. If you have pain, I want you to try Relief Factor.
It fights pain by fighting inflammation. It's a 100% drug free. It's a supplement. You take it every day as directed. If it if it doesn't work in 3 weeks for you, it's probably not gonna work.
It worked for me. It also has a money back guarantee. What do you have to lose? 19.95. Get their 3 week quick start kit.
Comes with the Relief Factor feel better or your money back guarantee. So give it a try. Relieffactor.com or call 800, the number 4, relief. Our American values are completely under attack. Our financial system is frankly broken.
You need to move quickly and find the safest ways to invest so you can protect yourself and your family from whatever dark thing might lie in the shadows just ahead. That's why I recommend to you that you would protect your hard earned savings with an asset you can trust and that is gold or silver. I made my first gold purchase, I don't know, 20, 25 years ago, after I was listening to Rush Limbaugh talk about Lear Capital. He was they were sponsors of Russia show forever. Today, I look back at the person that sold me that gold at Lear Capital.
It not only has my money more than quadrupled, the person that sold it there is still there. Lear helped me protect and prepare for coming insanity. Do the same now, will you? Just just call them. $3,000,000,000 in trusted transactions, 1,000 of 5 star reviews and 24 hour risk free purchase guarantee.
Lear. Lear Capital. Go there now. They'll count, credit your account $250 towards your purchases because you watch or listen to me. Call 808-89-3070.
800-889-3070. 800-889-3070. Tucker, welcome. How are you?
Speaker 1: Hey, Glenn. I'm great. I get in late last night. I haven't had a haircut as you can see. Yeah.
So pardon my appearance, but I'm I'm, grateful that you asked me. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Well, I I first of all, I just I I just wanna know, I mean, is this going to be a talk show, or are we gonna have a serious conversation? Because I'd like to start with the the history of the Beck family starting at 800 BCE. So
Speaker 1: what did
Speaker 0: you make of Zach. What did you make of that?
Speaker 1: Well, I was enraged because I thought, you know, I didn't go into the interview feeling like I had to, you know, posture morally. You know? The I took a look at the last interview I did with journalist, and the entire interview was the reporter from some dumb news outlet being like, I'm a good person. You're a bad person.
Speaker 0: You know?
Speaker 1: And that I I'm not interested in proving I'm a good person. People can assess. God can assess. You know? I I I just wanted information.
But I was infuriating because I thought he was really pretty straightforward the obvious question, which is why did you do this? Why'd you send troops into Eastern Ukraine? And he goes on this long answer, and so I interrupted him a couple of times. I tried to. It got very snippy.
And then I realized, no. This is the answer. And, you know, he just thinks differently. I've never met him before.
Speaker 0: So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. So I don't understand I don't understand the story because I had the same question you did at the very end.
So are you saying ancestral homelands should be given back to because that where does that end?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't believe in that anywhere. Yeah. Okay?
Speaker 0: Right. Neither do I.
Speaker 1: Giving my house back to the Passamaquoddy. Okay? I'm sorry. I feel sorry for people who are displaced, but I, you know, I there has to be a a statute of limitations. So I thought it was a silly argument to make.
I'm not sure he was making an argument, and moreover, I'm not sure I exactly what he was doing, so I shouldn't pretend that I do. There's a lot about that interview that I don't really understand. I don't think he was very effective if his goal was to win a western audience to his perspective. It didn't make me pro more pro Putin. No.
Not that I was. And by the way, I should just say at the outset, I've been accused of being pro Putin, and I'm not. But if I was, that's okay
Speaker 0: too. Right.
Speaker 1: I'm an adult man and an American citizen. I can like or dislike anyone I want. I can have any opinion I want. I'm not ashamed of it. And the idea that, like, a small number of people in DC get to decide what I believe
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: Is not something I accept. So You know? So I reserve right to like anybody. Right. Period.
Speaker 0: And I and I want I mean, you like me. It can't go downhill more than that. The, I wanna get to that here in a second. But first, you had a, a tough time. The first time you tried to interview interview Putin, the NSA was involved.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They they read my text messages and leaked them to the New York Times. How do you know? Guessing, but
Speaker 0: Okay. How do you know?
Speaker 1: Well, it could be because someone who worked there warned me through a very close very close friend of mine, and I won't bore you with the whole details, but I flipped to Washington and meet person and his request. I couldn't believe this. It scared me. I immediately called the US senator. I don't know very many US senators well, but there's one I thought seemed kind of trustworthy.
So I said, I just wanna get us on the record this has happened. And then members of congress went to NSA, and they admitted that they had read my email. And so it's I wasn't spat I went on TV and described the whole thing, and I thought there would be widespread out of it. I am. I thought people would be like outraged.
You can't No. You can't use a spy agency that we pay for whose job is to monitor our enemies, our rivals, in other countries. You can't use that against the American population, and no one seemed to care. But I cared I did. Because I grew up in the US government.
My dad ran a federal agency in Washington. So I sort of knew what the rules were, and I had a really strong sense of how much this had changed. Like, this was not allowed 30 years ago. It was an outrage. It's a crime, but no one seems to be bothered by it.
But I am bothered by it.
Speaker 0: So I am too. And I think every citizen should be, especially journalists. You know, when you have freedom of speech, freedom of press, there's 2 rights that are going away here, and, and nobody seemed to care. But how so then what happened the second time? How did you arrange this?
Speaker 1: Well, I, I just kept trying. You know? I kept, actually, I did it myself, with, you know, texting and I thought and I talked to a bunch of different people after that happened to me. I I really tried to learn more about privacy and how can you communicate, outside the view of state actors' governments. Mhmm.
And you can't if you're doing electronically. That is what I arrived at, and I think any knowledgeable person would admit that. There's no privacy, which itself is very distressing, but I just decided I would do it anyway. And I enlisted some non Russians I knew, who I thought might be able to vouch for me, etcetera. And it took a couple of years.
And ultimately, they said, yes, we will, do this. But if if news of this interview gets out, we're canceling the interview.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: So I started to get so this is the best part. I got calls. I got a call from a New York Times reporter, and then a friend of mine got a call from another New York Times reporter asking when I was interviewing Putin. And there's no way they could have known that. I didn't tell anybody.
You know, my wife, my producers, not even my kids, I didn't tell anybody. One of my children was highly annoyed to to learn I was in Moscow. Why didn't you tell me? I said, because I didn't wanna text it, you know. But no.
I they clearly did it again. They leaked it to the New York Times in an effort to scuttle the Internet. And I just again, I I hate to be, you know, mister stubborn principle guy, but that is a principle worth defending. I'm an American citizen. I have not committed a crime.
I can speak to anyone I want. I can have any opinion I want, and you're not allowed to use your creepy spy agencies against me because I'm your boss. This is a democracy. Aren't you always telling me that? But again, nobody cares, so I'm gonna stop the lecture on that.
But it it did motivate me to keep going. And but my real motivation was, like, I just wanna know what's happening there. We're in a war with Russia. We've never had a vote in congress on whether we should be in a war with Russia. No one's ever explained to me why we should be at war with Russia.
Why I'm supposed to hate Russians. Why am I supposed to hate Russians? We've got an awful lot of things going on here. The country is in very tough shape, especially right now. It's completely out of money.
We're bankrupt. And so it does seem like we should have more information before we send another $60,000,000,000 that we don't keep track of to Ukraine. I mean, that's just I have very straightforward motives, which I've explained many times, but nothing crazy or out of the ordinary, esoteric, or anything like that. Just like like, what is this? Let's find out more.
Speaker 0: Any feeling on why he chose you?
Speaker 1: Probably because I just kept trying. I mean, that was my sense. I just kept trying, and and I was one of the few and I should just say again, and I don't wanna be defensive because I'm I'm not defensive, but I'm I've never been a I don't have anything to do with Russia. I don't I had never been there before. Russian, you know, it's so nuts.
But my first instinct when this happened was that the sanctions were gonna destroy the primacy of the US dollar around the world and stealing people's stuff, 1,000,000,000 of dollars of people's stuff because they were, quote, oligarchs.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: Without any vote on it at all, law enforcement proceeding, much less adjudication, much less real evidence that they had anything to do with the invasion of Ukraine, which a lot of these people didn't. You're a Russian oligarch, said American oligarchs. We're taking your stuff. I was like, whatever happened to the rules based order? You know, that's crazy behavior.
And it's immoral, obviously, no matter who you're doing it to. You can't punish people without a finding of guilt, without proof. And moreover, it's going to convince, in short order, the rest of the world that you can't trust the US dollar because it's become a political instrument. Instrument that we use to punish people who deviate ideologically or don't do what we want. And the second the rest of the world understands that they're gonna do everything they can to exit the US dollar to find another place to store their money.
And the second they do that, the United States is going to collapse because this is a society, an economy based on debt. And if that ever comes due, we're done. This is a poor country, and it's all super obvious. And I didn't know why no one was saying that. None of the geniuses in congress seemed to even think about this.
They're like, no. We're gonna punish Putin because I don't know why white Christian country, we hate him. I really don't know what what the motive is. It's business. Well,
Speaker 0: just okay.
Speaker 1: But the effect on us is scary.
Speaker 0: It's huge. Agree with that a 100%. Let me let me cast out where I stand on this issue, and then you tell me if it is close to your because I can't figure out where you are exactly, and I bet a lot of people feel the same way about me and others, because it's a complex issue. Putin is a bad guy. Cold blooded killer throws people off of roofs.
You know, he's he's a bad guy. K? Period. Dictator. But I don't like the Russian leaders either.
They are corrupt and dirty, and I don't think that, are Ukrainian, and I don't think the Ukrainian leadership, is in it for really anything but money, power, and I'm not sure where all that money is going to. But when you're spending more than you did, for the Marshall Plan in inflation adjusted dollars, something isn't right. And why are we just pushing this through? So I don't wanna support Putin. I don't wanna support the leadership of Ukraine, and I don't trust Biden and and the administration on what they're doing.
They have been in meddling in Russia and Ukraine forever. So I can't say I have a horse with any I I don't wanna put my name behind any of the 3 because I don't trust any of the 3. But I'm still proudly American. I just don't want to be involved in this because some this is a game that's being played where we don't have the information and what the real game is. How do you where do you fit in that?
Speaker 1: I think I'm pretty close to to where you are. I'm a little more agnostic on global leaders just because maybe I care less. I I having, you know, spent a lot of time out of the country, interviewed a bunch of them, I sort of assume every world leader all leaders, by definition, are up to no good on some level.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The only thing I care about is the United States, and that's it. And I think the only thing the US government should care about by definition is the United States. So to the extent an alliance is good for the United States and my children, then I'm in favor of it. And to the extent it's bad, then I'm opposed to it. I mean, that's I have a very clear lens there.
I have no emotional attachment to any other country. I just I frequently go to, say, Finland or Switzerland, England. I I have ancestors from all of those countries. I like those countries. I love them, actually.
But I don't I don't have an emotional attachment. I am American. That's it. And so the Russia, Ukraine, the domestic politics of either one of those countries, the I
Speaker 0: don't even know what that
Speaker 1: long standing conflict they've had. Exactly. It's of it's of less interest to me, almost very little interest to me, actually. What I care about is the United States. That's the first thing.
Second thing is the people around our country are destroying it, and they're doing it on purpose. And there's no doubt about that in my mind, and I've withheld judgment for a number of years now. But with Yeah. What they've done at the border, completely changing the population of the country, letting in millions and millions of people who have no connection to the United States, can't possibly help our economy, can't possibly unify our very fractured civic culture, and whose loyalty to and knowledge of the United States is completely in question. In fact, their identities are in question.
We don't know who they are. And they're coming through a country in the middle of a drug war. The whole thing is not by the way, bad management, or they're not doing their job. No. They're destroying the United States on purpose.
And so I begin with that. So the idea that those same people are going to somehow affect positive change in Eastern Europe, a region they know nothing about, and it's demonstrable. They don't know anything at all, is like insane to me. And the fact that Republican leaders who really are either, in many cases, just they just don't know, or they're controlled, that is true, are on board with this is just infuriating. So but but I approach this in a very non emotional way.
I'm emotional about my country, and I think all Americans most Americans feel the same way I do. So They care about what happens here because your kids live here.
Speaker 0: Right. And I feel the same way, but I look at what's happening around the world because at first, I just concentrated on us. And then after Build Back Better became the slogan for every president and prime minister in the entire western world, I realized, wait a minute. This isn't about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and this is we are being led in our own countries, each of us, that to believe that it's us versus the Nazis or us versus, you know, the Democrats. It's not.
It is the people in each free country in the west against I'm not sure yet what it is, but a really nasty blob up at the top, that has their own designs on the world and their own plans on the world. And, it just seems to me that I I haven't found a Winston Churchill anywhere in the world. Name one that you you see, currently in office.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no difference between most leaders in the west because no western country, including ours, has sovereignty. And sovereignty means you get to act in your own interest. You're a distinct country with, you know, borders in a democratic system where your population decides how it will be governed, sovereignty. And we don't have that and no other country does. So they act as a group.
And I and I do think, you know, always pay attention to the things you're not allowed to think or say. And NATO is is a huge part of this. NATO is, in addition to everything else, totally incompetent. Totally incompetent. I mean, NATO is a defense alliance aimed at Russia.
And it turns out that Russia has a 7 x military an artillery shell capacity, manufacturing capacity of all of NATO. So all the NATO countries together produce 1 7th the number of artillery shells annually that Russia, this country we were told was a gas station with nuclear weapons, totally incompetent country produces. So NATO wasn't even good at the military piece. But NATO is not a military alliance, of course. It's a political and cultural alliance.
And it's the tool with which, you know, whatever this multilateral alliance of unelected people uses to express its will. And it is an offense against our sovereignty. The US when I set up for the US military, I should fight for the United States on behalf of its territorial integrity and its interests. I shouldn't be fighting for Lithuania. Like, the whole thing is nuts.
And in Washington, criticizing NATO is considered, like, sinful or something. It's a religion. But, of course, what it really is is a scam. It's a it's a money laundering operation, and it's an attack on American sovereignty. And, like, nobody can say that.
You won't find one member of Congress who will say that NATO is terrible for the United States, but, of course, it is. It's obvious.
Speaker 0: So let me let me now go to some of the criticism of you that, you know, Jon Stewart just did a piece. I don't know if you've seen it on you, but Yeah. Yeah. I never watched
Speaker 1: the music.
Speaker 0: A lot of stuff. I know. So, you know, you went in. You said Moscow is clean. The the subways are wonderful.
Look at the chandeliers. Well, you I know you, Tucker. You're smart enough to know who built those to look like that and why. And Duranty went over
Speaker 1: I said it I said it in the piece. So Walter Durant, he denied the existence. He was a New York Times correspondent in Russia in the thirties. He denied, of course, the the Ukrainian famine, which was Stalin. That's exactly right.
And he denied the the show trials of 1937, 38, the the the terror, was was happening. So, those were lies. Okay? He told lies, and that's why his Pulitzer Prize was pulled from him posthumously. I told the truth in order to shame our leaders.
That subway station I showed was built by Stalin in 1939. Joseph Stalin, probably the worst person in human history. That was over 80 years ago, and it's still in perfect shape. Okay. That's the point.
Look at what Moscow has and compare it to what we have. So but we have ask yourself, like, no. This is this is an indictment of our leaders. And I would recommend to every single one of your viewers and listeners, if you can, go spend a week in Moscow. Not not because you love Russia, but because you love your own country, and compare that city to the largest city in Europe, 13,000,000 people, compare it to the city that you live in or the city near you, which is in better shape?
So so, actually, it's an indictment. It's a radicalizing indictment of our rapidly declining standard of living and the horrible mismanagement of our leaders. Why don't we have a subway like that in any American Wait. Wait. Wait.
Wait. Wait.
Speaker 0: Give a
Speaker 1: single American city with no crime? Like, what is this?
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I mean, there's not a lot of crime in North Korea either. There's no there's no drug problem really in China because you could just take them off street and kill
Speaker 1: them. But but but but we didn't but we didn't have that here. And I'm only 54, and I remember it.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: It's not like you have a fascist Devon orderly society. We had one. So And on Memorial Day 2020, with the drug OD of George Floyd, everything changed. And what we got was the intentional destruction of American cities. Now I don't live in a city because I don't like them.
But what I missed because I don't live in one is that you can't have a great country unless you have a great city, period. Or a number of great cities. Cities define your country. That's not my choice. It's just a fact.
It's always been true. And so if every one of your cities is a cesspool, then your country is collapsing. But they don't need to be that way. Crime is the easiest thing to fix. You say, we're not we're just not putting up with this.
We've done it before. I covered it. I wrote a book on it in 1994. I watched New York City go from a very dangerous place to one of the safest cities in the world. And it didn't take mass executions.
No. It didn't even take mass incarceration. It just took paying attention to the details. If there's graffiti, wipe it off. If people are jumping over the turnstiles, arrest them.
It's called the broken windows. Doesn't happen.
Speaker 0: It's called the window theory Yes.
Speaker 1: By James q Wilson and George Kelling, one of the most famous pieces on criminology and really on social science ever written and true to the state. But, anyway, the point is we have a drug crisis, a fentanyl crisis, a homeless crisis, a crisis of mental illness, and a crime crisis, and a filth crisis, just the dirtiness of it. That's all on purpose. That's what I realized when I went to Moscow. And not just Moscow.
Abu Dhabi, which is not a fascist city at all, it's much more a more tolerant place than any place in the west actually. If you want your mind blown, spend a week in Abu Dhabi. It's true in Singapore, which is pretty authoritarian. It's true in Tokyo, which is kind of authoritarian.
Speaker 0: I'm wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
I've been to I've been to Abu Dhabi. They'll cut your hands off for, you know, for theft. I can't talk about Yes. Christ in Abu Dhabi. So it does have some
Speaker 1: Oh, not true. Oh, not true. Abu Dhabi is a bigger Christmas celebration than almost any American city. Oh, no. Abu Dhabi I mean, I don't know when the last time you were there.
I was just there last week. And I've spent a lot and look, I'm not flacking for Abu Dhabi. Okay? I'm about Africa. The point is, this is the lie that they tell, and this is what I've realized after just spending a lot of time going to different places with an open mind, thinking about how the lessons of these cities might apply to the cities that I care about.
Like the city I was born in, San Francisco, the prettiest city in North America by far,
Speaker 0: by the
Speaker 1: big town.
Speaker 0: By far.
Speaker 1: Totally uninhabitable. My family's been there since 18/50. So I do feel like some kind of ownership, I don't have ownership, but I feel a connection to the city, and it has declined to a place that is 3rd world or worse than 3rd world, actually, because the people running it wanted that. It wasn't an accident. It's not a choice.
But liberalism and Nazism, and if you choose liberalism, then you're gonna have 50,000 people shooting drugs on your side walks or crapping in your doorway. That's not the choice. You can have a free society. We had one for 100 of years Yes. Where there's order and politeness and decency and self respect and concern for the individual.
If you allow people to OD on drugs in your park, what are you saying? I don't care about their lives. You are a cruel and vicious person if you allow that. And we are allowing. Our leaders are.
And going to Moscow, I'm like, how the hell do they get this? I mean, how did how did this is Russia. This is the country. And, again, I don't wanna live in Russia, and I'm not going to. But I should be able to live in a city like that, and I can't because our leaders, every big city mayor, most governors, the entire congress of the United States, the White House, they step over the bodies of drug addicts, of Fentanyl addicts, maybe the dead bodies, every day on their way to work, and they don't notice to go appropriate more money for a country they know nothing about and whose language they don't speak.
Like, this is peak insanity. And so, yes, of course, I knew I was gonna be compared to Walter Duranty. And by the way, if Bill Kristol accuses you of not loving America enough, Bill Kristol, no no concern for America whatsoever. Like, you just laugh it off. You're telling look, I have a lot of faults.
I eat too much. I'm kind of a jerk. I get all that. But I don't I don't think it's a really serious critique to say I don't love America enough. Really?
Who are the people saying that? They're the ones who've opened our borders, let fentanyl flow in here, kill over a 100000 Americans every year, and it doesn't bother them at all. And they're telling me I don't love America. I'm trying not to use the f word on your show, but that's how I feel because it's just so insane.
Speaker 0: So, Tucker, I'm not
Speaker 1: go to Moscow. You should go next week. It will radicalize you. You will not give up American citizenship. You'll come back to this country and say, we had cities like this.
And if even Moscow can do it, we should do it.
Speaker 0: So I I I think I agree with you a 100%. Where the sticking point is in America right now is there's a lot of people on the right and the left that are both saying, screw the constitution. We need a radicalized leader. When, you know, when you look at Orban, I think Orban is great for his country. That's not our system.
I think, you know, the, Moscow might be great, love to visit. That's not our system. So I think and I I believe you are you're you've already said this, but I wanna make sure it's very clear on the record. The only path forward for America is through the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and the constitution. Correct?
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. And by the way, I I should just be very, very clear. If I was I'm like the one person on the planet. You don't need to guess about my motives.
I'll just say them. And if I was advocating for a different form of government or for for authoritarianism, for strong man, I would just say so. I I would have no shame in saying that because I really believe that it's within my rights to say what I think. If I I've been called a racist. If I was racist, I would just say it.
I would just say it. But I'm not. And I'm not advocating for that. I'm advocating to return to America of, say, 1993. How radical.
Is that really radical? No. I don't think it's very radical. In fact, I think we should be demanding it. And if there's one thing that I will fault Americans for, it's low expectations.
You should not put up with this. You should not allow them. The governor of Texas should not allow millions of people to cross his border. And I don't wanna hear, you know, the excuses. And I don't wanna hear the excuses for why it's okay to have tens of thousands of people dying on the street or sleeping on the sidewalk in tents handed to them by the Episcopal Church forever.
Like, that's not acceptable. It's not okay for my kids to use drugs at the breakfast table. I'm not gonna have a debate about it. No is the answer. I'm within my rights as a father to say that.
The US government is within its statutory rights as a government to say that. We don't need more laws. We have the laws. The they're not being enforced on purpose. And and to your point, why?
And, of course, the reason is because people will lose faith in liberal democracy.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And they will welcome a strong man. And that's exactly what this is about, is the left and not just the left. I would say that the quisling right, on Capitol Hill, for whom I just have boundless contempt, they're in on this as well.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: People are just gonna give up. They're not gonna vote. They're gonna steal the elections just as they stole the last one, which they did. Sorry. And they're gonna steal the next one.
And people are just gonna be like, you know what? I don't even care. I just totally give up. This is crazy. Just just get get the bums off my street.
Some guy just exposed himself to my daughter. My nephew just died of a fentanyl OD. Make it stop. Make it stop. You can have all the power you want.
That is absolutely what they're going for. And I don't want that. I wanna live in the country we lived in in 1993 or 1985. Not ancient history. Post Civil Rights Act, we can do that.
Let's do it right now. That's my point.
Speaker 0: You're right on that's what they're they're doing. It is it's amazing to watch. It's exactly the stuff that I talked about, back at Fox. It's tough down inside out. It's the way the communist did it.
It's the color revolution, and it's Cloward and Piven. It's it's all of it, and it's happening right in front of our eyes. It's crazy.
Speaker 1: People Americans need to know that because our sense of reality is shaped digitally and Wikipedia is our history and Instagram is our present and Twitter is our future x, you know, people forget that we didn't have this just a few years ago. And that's why going to places that are different really reminds you, it triggers in you this this chain reaction of thoughts, and you realize I cannot believe I'm putting up with this. I can't believe there's a homeless encampment in front of Union Station in our nation's capital directly across from the capitol building. That's so much more horrifying to me than anything that happened on January 6th. That's such an expression of contempt and loathing for the American people.
That's such an admission of defeat and lack of self respect. Like, no. You are not allowed to do drugs in front of Union Station. I don't wanna hear your excuse. I'm not responsible for housing you.
Get out of here. Like, it's just it's not hard. And that is kind of the society that they have in a lot of other countries. Right? I mean, it's it's people should travel and see this stuff.
It'll make you love America more and make you want better for America. That's the only point.
Speaker 0: No more interruptions, from here on out. Let me just tell you a couple of things. First of all, good ranchers. £5,000,000,000 of meat are imported and sold in the US every year. £5,000,000,000.
Why? Well, because because our government is doing everything they can to put our ranchers and our farmers out of business. Good ranchers are the number one source for 100% American meat that I would trust to my family and feed my family. Instead of getting overpriced imported meat at the store, yeah, they can legally put the little flag, product of the US, because they might wrap it here. Not kidding.
Good Ranchers delivers my meat to my family. We eat it, all the time, and they deliver it right straight to the door. We have chicken. We have beef. We have great, great bacon.
Right now, if you subscribe to any of their 100% American meat boxes to secure their leap year offer of free bacon for 4 years. That's £70 of Applewood smoked bacon you'll get just by subscribing. Beef, chicken, pork, wild caught seafood, all amazing. Remember, it's all 100% America, which your grocery store can't really say. Not sure which box to choose?
Try their best seller, the Rancher's classic. Or if you got a hungry household, check out their family feast bundle. Get quality, local food you can trust and feel proud to feed your family. Go to goodranchers.com. Use the promo code Glenn.
Claim over $900 in free bacon before the leap year sale ends. Goodranchers.com, American meat delivered. Also, let me tell you about SAT 123. This is something that, my family has. We always take it on vacation or anything, because I learned after 9:11.
Imagine for a moment that you have a phone that will take and receive calls literally anywhere on earth. No reliable cell network to worry about. I happen to live up in the mountains half the year, and I have no cell service up there. What if that phone also had an encrypted signal so no one could listen in to your calls? No one could read your text other than the person that you send them to?
That kind of phone, exists. It usually is in the military, and members of the senate use it for encrypted secure calls. But you don't have to imagine having one because what I'm describing is a sat phone, a satellite phone. You know, I'm always telling you how to be prepared for any emergency situation. Well, if we're in a situation where the cell phone service is down remember the Lahaina fires in Hawaii last year cell service was down The guy who's running the Marriott Maui Ocean Club used a satellite phone and ended up helping 14,000 people.
Satellite phone stores have got you covered with plans starting as low as 95.99 or they have discounted family share plans with up to 3 satellite phones. Go to sat123.com today. Sat123.com or call 855-980-5830. That's 855-980-5830. Sat123.com.
So let me let me go back to the interview. He Putin was telling you, weaving a story that our president isn't really in control, wasn't he? And did you Of course. Have you done anything and reached out to try to verify any of this that it was true? I mean, do you believe him?
Speaker 1: That the president's not really in control of him. Obviously, obviously
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The policies don't change.
Speaker 0: Well, I will tell you. I will. I when I heard him say that to you, I thought of something that George Bush told me in the Oval Office. I was asking about the policies and how they were gonna change, and he said, Glenn and then he tried to make me feel good by saying this. Glenn, don't worry.
Whoever sits behind this desk in that chair is going to have the same advice given by the same advisers, and they'll realize the president's hands are tied. I walked out of that room horrified. Horrified.
Speaker 1: Uh-huh.
Speaker 0: Then why do we even have elections?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I I, of course, I I couldn't agree more. And, I mean, look. They haven't released the JFK files Right. Over 60 years later.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: Okay? No president has just one. We have over a 1000000000 classified documents. So it's not a it's not a democracy in the sense that they told us it was. And I think it can be fixed.
I think the president's primary power is his communication with the public. And I continue to think that any president who decided to go right to social media, like a direct feed. Here's what I know. Here's what's going on. He could harness the power of the population, and he could make a change.
I mean, look, it's the US the federal government's the largest organization in human history. You can't probably not gonna change it in 4 years, but you could make this country more democratic. And you know what you could certainly do is change the conversation away from where they want it, which is getting black people and white people to hate each other. Okay? Race hate is a manufactured phenomenon in this country for the most part.
Yeah. And it's actually provable. That happened during occupy Wall Street in 2012. The mentions of white supremacy and racism in the New York Times went up 100 of fold. So this is an intentional strategy to get people to hate each other on the basis of race.
And as I walk around this country, I'm really surprised by how little race hatred there is. It actually hasn't worked very well. Most Americans don't want to do that. And they don't want to talk about foreign policy and the economy, which are the core functions of state. And on those two topics, like, why do private equity people pay half the tax rate that you do?
Like, that seems like a kind of an interesting conversation. Shut up. And why are we sending sending all this money to Ukraine? I I wanna hear an amazing story that just tells you everything about this. So I'm over in Moscow.
I'm waiting to do this interview. It gets out that we're doing it. And I'm immediately denounced by this guy called Boris Johnson who was for a short time the prime minister of Great Britain. And Boris Johnson calls me a tool of the creme on or something. And I'm thinking, well, that's kind of I mean, his name's not actually Boris as I'm sure you know.
His name is Alex Johnson. And he called himself Boris in high school. So the guy who calls himself Boris is accusing me. I was like so I was annoyed. So I put in a a request for an interview with Boris Johnson, as I have many times, because he's constantly denouncing me as a tool of the Kremlin.
He says no. So I'm thinking about something getting more annoyed. So I know a lot of people who know Boris Johnson. So I reach out to them. Finally, one of his advisors gets back to me and says, he will talk to you, but it's gonna cost you $1,000,000.
He wants $1,000,000 What? In US dollars, gold or Bitcoin. No. I'm this just happened yesterday or 2 days ago. And and I'm like, he wants a $1,000,000.
Yeah. And then he will talk to you about Ukraine. He will explain his position on Ukraine and explain what so he attacks me without explaining how I'm wrong, of course, or how he's right. This is, by the way, the guy who single handedly, at the request of the US government, stopped the peace deal in Ukraine a year and a half ago, and is, I think, for that reason responsible for the deaths of 100 of thousands of people. He won't explain any of that to me in an interview until I pay him a $1,000,000.
And I said to the guy, you know, I just interviewed Vladimir Putin. I'm not defending Putin, but Putin didn't ask for a $1,000,000. So you're telling me that Boris Johnson is a lot sleazier, a lot lower than Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Which is true. Yeah. So this whole thing is a freaking shakedown. Why $60,000,000,000 I mean, I could get boring on this because I've learned a lot about it. But $60,000,000,000 is not gonna allow Ukraine to prevail over Russia.
No honest person thinks that's gonna work. This is a money laundering operation. A lot of the people involved in it are making money from it. And if you're making money off a war, you know, you can deal with God on that because that's really immoral. Like, that's actually really, really wrong.
And a lot of people are including Boris Johnson.
Speaker 0: So I pointed out that, the Ukrainians were funding, really through us, this Nazi, you know, group on the border of Russia. We had been funding them for quite a while because they were fighting against Russia. Okay. Now I guess it's okay for everybody to be, you know, in bed with the Nazis. When Putin said that, do you is he just evoking the Nazis because what it means to his people?
Is that really one of his goals? Is that really what's what's hap whatever what what did you finally get from him on what's happening on his side? Why is he doing this?
Speaker 1: I thought it I thought it was stupid, the whole Nazi thing. I mean, there's no, you know, the Nazi party was a German party, which obviously repugnant, party, but was responding to a specific historical set of circumstances growing out of the Treaty of Versailles. So Nazism, there's no there's no Das Kapital of Nazism. Right? And so it doesn't kind of transfer.
Like Nazism died in April of 1945 when Hitler shot himself. So, you know, there are all kinds of ugly political movements in the world, but let's think of a new name for them. I I think it's like a weird Well,
Speaker 0: national socialist.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Or whatever. But, like, what ideology are you talking about? I just don't even underst. So, like, look.
Russia moved into Eastern Ukraine because the Biden administration pushed them to. There's a war in Ukraine because the Biden administration wanted a war in Ukraine. And that's very obvious, and it happened in public. Biden sent his vice president to the Munich Security Conference days before the invasion, 2 February's ago, to announce in public at a press conference that we wanted Ukraine to join NATO. That would mean nuclear weapons on Russia's border.
Now this is not a new conversation. This has been going on for 30 years.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Russia does not want nuclear weapons aimed at Moscow on its border and has said that's the red line as it would be with with for any country for if, you know, know, if the Chinese did that in Mexico, I hope we would say no. We're going to war before we allow that. And they knew that. And they pushed him to do this. Of course.
Now their motive, you know, I we can only guess at it, but that absolutely happened. And you're, like, not allowed to say that, but that's true.
Speaker 0: Yes. It is.
Speaker 1: It's not a defense of Putin. It's an attack on the craziness of our foreign policy, which is, like, purely destructive. Nothing is built, only destroyed. It's nuts.
Speaker 0: Let me, let me switch here for, for a second on some things that have happened just recently while you were gone. Navalny, went for a walk in the Arctic Circle because he liked to walk outside, and then he came back. They say they tried everything they could to resuscitate. Was he assassinated or not?
Speaker 1: Are you asking me if I
Speaker 0: did it? Yeah. I did. No?
Speaker 1: I can tell you. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I should never I'd never admit it. You know, was he assassinated?
I have no idea. No one in the United States has any idea. All these buffoons like Chuck Schumer, the c our senile president jumping up and down in Russia to this. I mean, they don't know that. They don't know anything about it, actually.
I have no freaking idea. I can tell you it didn't help Russia to do it. They put him in prison. You can argue about whether they had justification for doing that. I'm not that interested.
Russia is not a free country in the way that the country I grew up in is, was, and I care about my country being free. That's all I care about. So, whatever. I don't know. I'm not that interested.
I haven't spent a lot of time reading about Navalny. I know this, Him dying during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of the debate on Ukraine funding, both of which they're highly aware of, doesn't help Russia. Yeah. So the people say, oh, Putin just had him murdered last week because they're idiots. They don't actually know anything.
They don't know anything. These are the same people who told us that Ukraine was gonna win. Really? Russia has a 100,000,000 more people and far deeper industrial capacity. Like, that's insane.
No person outside the United States thought that for a second that Ukraine could win. Not maybe they're rooting for Ukraine, maybe not. I mean, who knows? But as a factual matter, the information desert that we live in is really, really scary. And sometimes I think maybe the average North Korean knows more about what's happening in the world than the average American who watches NBC News because it's just so distorted.
The lies are like so it's like a vacuum. You don't even like like, the the two facts I just did, Russia has a 100,000,000 more people and the capacity to produce 7 times the number of artillery shells as all of NATO. Those are just two facts that I'm not sure the average person in this country had as ever before. And those are the determinative facts in a ground war. Do you have more people?
Do you have more material? Do you do you have more, howitzer shells? And, like, the people making these decisions, Anthony Blinken. Anthony Blinken. I can't believe that guy is the secretary of state.
What a mediocrity. That he doesn't know that or something? Like, the whole they're just so ignorant that it's scary.
Speaker 0: Super scary. But I don't know if they are ignorant. Look at look at the Iranian policy. Who doesn't know Iran is a terrorist state that really truly means they're going to burn the Jews in the fire of the Islamic fury? Who doesn't know that?
Who doesn't know that enough to say, you know what? We shouldn't send over $8,000,000,000. We we just shouldn't do it. We we shouldn't play
Speaker 1: I gotta be honest. I understand that. And then that was, of course, something that Obama did, and there was
Speaker 0: And quite a
Speaker 1: bit of debate with the party. And he, oh, boy, he pushed it through. And I've thought about that for almost it's been almost 10 years.
Speaker 0: No. But Biden has Biden, I think, has done another allowed them to dip in to another 6,000,000,000, you know, as long as it's used for peaceful purpose. You don't you would never make that deal with Adolf Hitler. You you you know who they are. You know, somebody said to me once, is a rattlesnake a bad pet?
No. It's a perfectly fine pet as long as you always remember it's a rattlesnake. We are treating people who are in our own country like enemies, and people who are oppressing people, we're we're treating them like friends.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. I've I've noticed that. And and I have to say the disproportionate outrage at the Russians, is puzzling to me. But again, all of it is playing out against the backdrop that I care about, which is life in the United States. And I feel like we're in a moment where things are moving south at high speed
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Particularly the demographic replacement. American citizens being replaced by foreigners who are being encouraged to go into the military. Let's let's hand them we don't know who they are. They don't know anything about the United States. They may or may not be loyal to it.
Let's give them guns. I mean, where do you think that's going, Glenn? I mean, of course, the military will be used as it was on January 6th as a tool of domestic political control
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Obviously. And it's much easier to do that with foreigners than it is with people who grew up in this country. So that's way scarier than anything that happened to Navalny in some Siberian I mean, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. It's like I'm against putting Navalny or any political opponents in jail ever, whether it's the January 6 people who are still rotting, whether it's Navalny, whether it's Gonzalo Lyra, the American citizen who died in custody in Ukraine. I mean, I'm opposed to all of that stuff.
But all I don't understand this weird externalizing process of emotion that happens for a lot of well educated Americans where they they don't they're not mad about what's happening around them. They're mad about what's happening in some country they've never been to. It's like, what is that? In other words, it's like, you you you've got a kid who's a drug addict but you don't have time drive him to rehab because you're sending money to
Speaker 0: The drug company.
Speaker 1: Burkina Faso or something. No. But you're sending it to, like, some kid you've never met Oh. In a country you've never been to. It's like, what is that?
Yeah. And I and the last thing I'll say is I've noticed that a lot of the most passionate sort of advocates for this idea that, you know, the only problems are brought and we need to spend all of our money on those problems are people with very weird and hollow personal lives. I I'm sorry. I'm not I don't wanna be mean. I'm just being honest.
Very dishonest, personalized, creepy personal lives, unsettled inside, like a normal person in this in all countries wants like, I want to have dinner with my wife and play with my dogs and see my kids grow up and have grandchildren and I want my neighborhood to be safe and I want my friends to be happy and I want you know what I mean? Like those are the kind of core and concerns for most people. It really takes someone like Lindsey Graham, who doesn't have children, to be like, no. The most important thing is Kharkov or something,
Speaker 0: which is
Speaker 1: so silly in Eastern Europe. But, like, honestly, what does that have to do with El Paso or my kids? Nothing. It's a it's a syndrome, kind of. Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 0: I do know what, what you mean. The reason why I brought up Navalny is because Donald Trump this week is in trouble because he said, well, yeah. Navalny. I mean, that's what happens when you put political prisoners behind bar. When when you take somebody who is is running against you and the state has so much power, they pull you off and put you in jail.
Sound familiar? And while the left has a problem with Navalny, as you would say, oddly so, they don't see the connection on what we're doing here, what we're doing with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Oh, they see it. No. They see it. They just look. The one thing they're really good at, they're not good at engineering or building anything or even preserving what our ancestors handed us in New York City, for example.
They'll destroy everything in the physical world, but the one thing they're really talented at is occupying the moral high ground in an unjustified way, is flying into such a hysterical frenzy that they intimidate people into repeating their slogans. Why? Where are you in Navalny? Navalny? I don't know.
I mean, I'm against people being killed, I guess. I don't know anything about it. You know what I mean? And what? Where are you in Navalny?
You don't have a position in Navalny? He has not spoken on Navalny. You know, the the thing? Damn. It's like which was I I was I was I was, like, thousands of miles away 2 days ago in a car.
And somebody sends me this piece from the Daily Mail, which used to be kind of a good newspaper. It's like total garbage at this point along with the New York Post. It's like so weird how these papers get captured. But they had some peace. Like, Tucker Carlson has not said a word, issued a statement about Navalny.
Well, I didn't know. I didn't know anything about Navalny. I didn't know he died. I didn't know anything. Nobody I did have an airplane from Dubai.
It was like, you don't have a statement? And I do think if we're gonna reclaim our humanity from people who would turn us into slaves, one of the first things we need to say is I control what I think and what I say. I can have my own opinions. By the way, I don't have to have an opinion. I don't have an opinion on that.
It's not important to me. It's okay to say that. Your priorities don't have to be mine. Mine don't have to be yours. And if they do then I'm no longer a free person.
I'm a slave. You consider me subhuman. I'm like your dog. You can you can tell me what to care about, what to eat. But as a free man, no.
I I don't have to share your priorities. I don't have to be interested in Navalny's death. I can be very interested or not. But, you can't force me to be. And I think that's really important for people to to make the decision that they're going to think independently and not be intimidated by these these freaks.
Yeah. And they are freaks.
Speaker 0: By the way, I just, you know, as somebody who, emailed you something, I I just wanna say thank you for text messaging me while you're in Russia, and the NSA is watching. I just I just thought that was a great move from a good friend. Oh, thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm excited. I have this way of confident. Like, I have all these people, like, come to me. Well, you need to get this software. Do that or whatever.
Speaker 0: And you need to get your phone.
Speaker 1: You gotta throw your phone. No. No. In fact, I may I may send, you know, some naked pictures of myself to the NSA just to just to wreck their day. You know?
This no. I'm not I don't have to do that. I'm not you know what I mean? I'm an American citizen.
Speaker 0: I do.
Speaker 1: You're a criminal, not me. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Not me. You mean the NSA. Let me with that being said, when you were over and sitting in front of Putin, who has absolute control, and is a former KGB guy, Was there any time that you because he he said several times, like, oh, I I know who you are. I know you studied history. I mean, he knew you.
When you got to the question about the Wall Street Journal reporter, did it ever cross your mind that I'm not in my home country? I'm saying this to a very powerful man who does, do what he wants. Were you ever worried?
Speaker 1: No. Not at all. I wasn't worried for a single second I was there. I wasn't worried going over there, not because I trust the Russian government, I don't, but because my kids are grown and, like, I don't really care at this point. I feel protected.
I say my prayers. Much more worried about my government, much more worried about my country than I am about Russia because I'm not Russian. You know? I wasn't no. I wasn't intimidated at all.
I was annoyed a couple of times. I thought it was interesting. I thought he was interesting. He was hostile to me. Oh, he's said that he's somehow
Speaker 0: you didn't even ask hard questions. Whatever. Yeah. I know.
Speaker 1: Did he really say that?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. You didn't hear that? Yeah. He he came out and said he was very disappointed you didn't ask any hard questions.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's funny. Yeah. I mean, I what what's a hard question to Putin?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, I I just wanted to hear his view. And I think one of the thing I mean, it's not about me. That's kind of the point, and that is one of the uglier things about journalism, if you can call it that. It's all the hair hats wanna make it about them because that's why they're in television in the first place because they're so they just like yearn for the adulation of strangers. They're empty inside.
I don't care about the adulation of strangers. I just was sincerely interested in who this guy is and I still don't think I know but I learned a few things and one of them is he's very wounded by what he sees as the rejection of the West. And and I think it makes him angry, really angry. I think he was angry at me about it. I've got nothing to do with that.
But no. I mean, the Soviet Union ended in August of 1991. I was on my honeymoon. I'll never forget it because my family had been involved in the Cold War. So, like, this was a topic of conversation.
And the idea was, well, why can't we work together? If not be friends, at least, you know, be allied in some way that's mutually beneficial. He in 2000 this is a he said this in the interview and it's true. He asked Bill Clinton if Russia could join NATO. Now NATO exists as a as a bullwork against Russia.
Right? So if Russia wants to join NATO, then there's no reason to have NATO, and we can just call it a big win and go home Right. And build our own countries, do something constructive. And they turned him down. And it's like, I've never no one seems to think that's a big thing.
I think it's a very big thing. Why would NATO, which exists to control Russia, turn down Russia's entry into the alliance? Like, it's insane. And then he asked again, George w Bush, I would like to be in a missile alliance with you against Iran. And Bush is like, yeah.
It sounds like a good idea. And then Condi Rice, one of the dumbest people ever, is like, no. We can't do that. Why why can't we do that? Why wouldn't that be in the interest of both of our countries?
And so you sort of come away thinking like there's a lot more going on here than Russia's unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine. That's not actually what happened. Yes. Russia invaded Ukraine. Yes.
It's bad. 100 of have died. Ukraine's been destroyed. A small number of people have gotten very rich. Boris Johnson hopes to get rich from it, etcetera, etcetera.
But there's a context here that does not make American policymakers look good at all. In fact, it's shameful. And the last thing I'll say is, you know, the point is to depose Putin, kill Putin, whatever, get Putin out of office. What happens then? So Russia is the largest country in the world by land mass.
It has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. It's an incredibly diverse country. It's about 20% Muslim. All these different republics, 80 of them, I think. And so what happens to the nuclear arsenal Mhmm.
Without Putin? Is is that good for the world? Like, it sounds like chaos. It sounds like the kind of chaos that we created in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, Afghanistan. None of that made the world safer.
None of it helped American interests. It actually made the world much scarier, more volatile, and allowed China to surpass us economically, which it has. So, like, why would we want to do that to the biggest country in the world? I think that's insane. If you're powerful and wise, you seek to bring stability and order and predictability and peace.
That's what a father does in his family. That's what a good CEO does in a company. It's what a good general does.
Speaker 0: But an abusive abusive husband or or father, creates instability intentionally, always keeping people on the edge.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Can
Speaker 0: I ask you, you were such a, I don't I don't mean this as a bad thing? You're just such an odd individual in the fact that your dad was in government. He was kind of obliquely in intelligence too, wasn't he? Or not?
Speaker 1: Well, I applied to the CIA. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. But yeah. But you're but you're Yeah.
Speaker 1: That was I grew up in a world like that for sure.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I couldn't less of the CIA now to be completely clear. I'm so grateful.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I know. I used to have real respect for our agencies. I think they're enemies of the state, quite honestly, or the people. Let me, help me understand how you grew up.
I grew up working class, and now I live a different life, but I always feel like I'm still working class even though I'm not. Okay? You've never really been working class. You've always been that upper class in the in all of the places that make people into the the leaders of tomorrow that are that don't care about the people. How how is it that you have held on to something I don't think you ever really had, and that is that that average everyday citizen that is going out punching a time clock and coming in and just trying to make ends meet.
Where did that come from with you?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I don't have that perspective. I never have. I mean, I've you know? I mean, no. I'm not from that background at all.
I'm from the opposite background for sure every day of my life. And so I would never pretend to be the voice of the working class. No.
Speaker 0: I know. But I the opposite. Right. I don't think
Speaker 1: that No. No. My my motive comes from not and I actually now live in a in a working class area, and I love the people there, but I'm not that's not my world. I'm motivated by my loathing of the people in charge. The one thing I know a lot about are the people who populate the ruling class because I spent my whole life with them.
I'm not against ruling classes. Every society has one. Someone's gotta be in charge. There's always an elect that runs everything. They're always Brahmins.
Okay? Always. And there always will be. So I'm not against it. I'm not a populist in that sense.
I'm just against incompetent, selfish, nasty, stupid people being in charge. That's exactly who we are. And I'm so mad about it because I know exactly who they are. And so when you're telling me that Anthony Blinken is a statesman, I'm like, no he's not. He's like a low IQ political hack who's acting for, like, personal reasons, have nothing to do with the welfare of the United States in his Ukraine policy.
And I know that. And I know them all. And I know I lived next to them my whole life. 35 years in DC. So it's like, I'm not fooled by that.
Oh, well, it's I've you know, we're I went to Harvard and, you know, and then HBS, and I'm at the you know, I spoke at Aspen this summer. It's like, I know how mediocre that is because I've been around it my whole life. So I'm just not impressed. I don't want anything from them at all. I'm not rich.
I have enough. So it's like, I I'm just in this weird position where I know exactly who they are. I don't want their stupid little merit badges. I couldn't have more contempt for them. And I'm old enough now that, like, why not just say it?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And I am. I just don't I just don't care. I'm gonna keep saying it.
Speaker 0: That's what makes you so dangerous. So dangerous. So let me end we've just got a couple of minutes. Let let me end with, you know Max Benz, and I heard your podcast with him. Oh, Mike, Mike Benz.
No. Is it? It's Max, isn't it? Max Benz. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Mike no. No. Mike Benz. Yeah. That guy's so smart.
Speaker 0: So smart. So smart. And, he what he says is truly remarkable. And you kind of listen to it and say, wow, all of this makes sense. I think it's probably accurate and no way out, no way out.
That, you know, that doesn't help America at all. It doesn't help us to think no way out. I'm much more of a optimistic catastrophist. I think you're just generally an optimistic guy. How do we navigate the next 8, 9 months?
How do we bring people together with the armada that is arrayed against Americans?
Speaker 1: I think it's really important to create a hierarchy of importance just in life and in public policy and just every sphere of life. Like, decide what's most important, what do I do first? And my smartest friend, my wisest friend, who's been really successful, just because he's wise, always says, look, it it comes down to food, water, energy. You know, the countries rise and fall on the basis of food, water, energy. And And every time he talks like that, he talks in terms of fundamentals, like what actually matters.
It's not really about trans swimmers or black lives matter. It's about energy, food, water, and it's about the use of force. And so the number one thing you need to worry about in any country is the military. And we just don't have a history of worrying about the military, but we should be very worried about the military because that's where the guns are. And so if you wanted to take a pop a continental sized country like ours with the population of 350,000,000 people and you wanted to subdue them, you would need force.
And so it's the it what was so striking about what Ben said was, it's the DOD, it's the military that is censoring us, and they're doing it for political reasons. And that is a completely different thing from, say, the Democratic National Committee or even the FBI. The military has to be nonpartisan. It has to be controlled by elected officials, civilian control. So the voters have some control over the military.
And conservatives and it's such a wonderful and clever op on the part of the left because conservatives just imagine the people who serve in the military are just like them. But the officer corps is not at all. They're, like, speaking at the Aspen Institute. They don't share your values. They hate you.
They hate Christianity. And they're they're dangerous. Now the average NCO or one of the listed guys are great. And they're, you know, red blooded Americans that are met. But the leadership of the military is dangerous.
They're dangerous. They're dangerous not simply because of the many failed wars, they've been involved in, but because they're dangerous because they could be used against the US population. That's not crazy. And adding, you know, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to the military over the past 10 years, which they absolutely plan to do oh. And so I just think if you want to make the country better focus on the big things.
Let's make sure the power grid works. Let's make sure the military is not population. Like let's just start there. And those are the things that conservatives just miss because they're off on all this other stuff. No no.
Energy, force of arms, these are big things. The bigger it is, the more important it is. That's why I'm focused on Ukraine because it's like it's a war. Mhmm. People are getting killed.
What's more important than that? Oh, shut up. Leave it to the experts, no. No. Thanks.
I'm a citizen. You know what I mean? I can have a view.
Speaker 0: Tucker, I think at first, both of us years ago years ago didn't know what to make of one another. But tough times brings out the best in people. And I have watched you over the last, 5 years just become one of the the most frank and honest, journalists, in America. And I it's an honor to know you, especially at this time. I I hope you write down everything that you're doing every day because you are playing a big role in history.
You are. You are. You are.
Speaker 1: Well, it's accidental. Trust me.
Speaker 0: God bless you.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it. Thank you. See, man. God bless you.
reSee.it AI Summary
A Russian man was detained for planning a terrorist attack on Tucker Carlson, following instructions from Ukrainian special services. The suspect intended to plant an explosive device under Carlson's car at the Four Seasons Hotel. Carlson believes he was under surveillance by US intelligence agencies during his interview with Russian President Putin. He was previously listed on the Myrotvorets website for allegedly threatening Ukraine's sovereignty.
@peacemaket71 - Peacemaker
A Russian was detained who was preparing a terrorist attack to kill Tucker Carlson on instructions from the Ukrainian special services. On suspicion of preparing a terrorist attack, a native of Podolsk was detained, who, acting on instructions from the State Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine, was supposed to blow up the car in which the popular American journalist Tucker Carlson was traveling. It is known that the man was supposed to plant an explosive device under a car located in the underground parking lot in the building of the Four Seasons Hotel, where Tucker Carlson lived during his visit to Russia from February 1 to 8. The suspect was detained at the preparation stage; he failed to carry out his plans. It is known that the suspect confessed. He was recruited by the Main Directorate of Intelligence of Ukraine in November 2023. The “curators” promised the performer $4,000 for successfully completing the task. Tucker Carlson himself, who interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin in early February, is confident that he was being monitored by US intelligence agencies. He said the surveillance was carried out by the US National Security Agency (NSA). According to Carlson, intelligence agencies leaked the collected data to the New York Times in order to disrupt the interview with Putin. Previously, Tucker Carlson was included in the database of the Myrotvorets website for “an attempt on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Я, Василий Яковлевич, 88 лет, из Подольска. В 1923 году меня завербовали через интернет для работы с взрывными устройствами. Мне было поручено заложить взрывное устройство под автомобиль на подземной парковке отеля в Москве. Целью были американские зоны 10 ракет Карлсон. Однако меня задержали до выполнения задания.
Translation: I, Vasily Yakovlevich, 88 years old, from Podolsk. In 1923, I was recruited online to work with explosive devices. I was instructed to plant an explosive device under a car in the underground parking lot of a hotel in Moscow. The target was American zones with 10 Carlson rockets. However, I was arrested before completing the task.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Я, Василий Яковлевич, 88 года рождения, уроженец Подольска. В ноябре 1923 года был завербован и сотрудником Украины через сеть интернет. Прохотел обучение работе в спецспеках со спецсвязью сбора подрыва взрывных устройств, а также работе в ЦНИИКАН. 31 января от куратора получил задание забрать stanni каждого устройства и использовать его от подрыва автомобиля. Что вам обещали?
Здесь нужно бразди мне 4000 долларов. Где должно было быть применено взрывное устройство? На подземной парковке отеля фашизм в Москве необходимо было забронировать взрывное устройство из тайника и заложить его под этот транспорт. Против кого планировалось применить взрывное устройство? Много сообщали.
Сейчас вы знаете, кто был целью? Да, американские зоны 10 ракет Карлсон. Что пошло не так? На идальнюю подготовку был задержан со своими руками.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared insights from Tucker Carlson's interview with Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, who discussed his concerns about privacy and government surveillance. Durov expressed skepticism about the security of US-developed platforms and highlighted his belief that tyrannical governments and intelligence agencies collaborate for a global agenda of mass surveillance and censorship. His recent arrest in Paris underscores these issues, reinforcing the notion that our privacy is often disregarded by our own government.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Tucker Carlson Interviews Telegram CEO Pavel Durov On His Relationship With The NSA, National Security Agency Confirming our own government completely disregards our privacy. Now Pavel Durov has been arrested in Paris, France “I assume by default that the devices I use are compromised. I have very limited faith in platforms developed in the US from a security standpoint and Privacy standpoint” Tyrant governments and intelligence agencies are working together for the globalist agenda of mass surveillance and censorship. This was not a coincidence
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 states their interactions with the NSA are very limited, adding the NSA is not an agency that works with you directly. Speaker 0 mentions reading in newspapers about their phone being penetrated with Pegasus, but has no idea if it's true, stating this is the only source of information they have about themselves personally. Speaker 0 assumes by default that the devices they use are compromised and has very limited faith in platforms developed in the US from a security standpoint and privacy standpoint.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How often
Speaker 1: do you intersect with the National Security Agency, NSA? And I asked that as someone whose text were read by them. So I I I know that they're very active in this world. What's your experience been?
Speaker 0: Well, I think the NSA is not an agency that works with you directly.
Speaker 1: Right? Yeah. Coming here You're so diplomatic. I love it. The NSA is not an agency that works with you directly.
No. That is true.
Speaker 0: My interactions with the NSA is very limited. Yes. I could read something in the newspapers about my phone being penetrated with Pegasus or something like that. No idea whether it's true or not. This is the only source of information I can have about me personally.
You gotta think you're under crazy amounts of surveillance, wouldn't you think? That's probably true. You know, it would sound funny, but I assume by default that the devices I use are compromised. I have very limited faith in platforms developed in the US from a security standpoint. Yes.
Privacy standpoint. Exactly.
@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz
Incredible. Today I spent 2 hours on Tucker Carlson talking about the Atlantic Council’s role in the US military, intelligence & diplomatic quest to wrest control of Telegram, & now @DarrenJBeattie just came in with this bombshell direct receipt.
@RevolverNewsUSA - Revolver News
Breaking: US Government-Funded Censorship Arm ‘Atlantic Council’ Targeted Telegram Just Two Months Before Durov Arrest https://revolver.news/2024/08/atlantic-council-us-government-funded-censorship-arm-targets-telegram-just-two-months-before-durov-arrest/ https://revolver.news/2024/08/atlantic-council-us-government-funded-censorship-arm-targets-telegram-just-two-months-before-durov-arrest/
Breaking: US Government-Funded Censorship Arm 'Atlantic Council' Targeted Telegram Just Two Months Before Durov Arrest - Revolver News
The Atlantic Council, by the way, is funded by both the US Government and various Ukrainian oligarchs.
revolver.news
Breaking: US Government-Funded Censorship Arm 'Atlantic Council' Targeted Telegram Just Two Months Before Durov Arrest - Revolver News
The Atlantic Council, by the way, is funded by both the US Government and various Ukrainian oligarchs.
revolver.news
@JzeViewing - Jimbo
Tucker Carlson is CIA https://t.co/IE9nmm6dcf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson has given varied responses regarding his connections to the CIA. He stated that he applied to the CIA as a college senior wanting to work in operations, influenced by his father's friends who were operations officers. He claimed he "had no idea what the CIA was, actually" at the time.
Carlson acknowledged his father's work in conjunction with the CIA. According to Alan MacLeod, Carlson's father, Richard Carlson, directed the US Information Agency (USIA) under Ronald Reagan, overseeing Radio Liberty and Voice of America, which the New York Times called a CIA-built "worldwide propaganda network." Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA until the 1970s. Richard Carlson ran Voice of America, essentially the broadcasting wing of the CIA's propaganda machine, at the height of the Cold War.
Carlson now claims to be a "sworn enemy of the CIA." When asked about the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, Carlson denied involvement, but the CIA was implicated. The speaker questions whether it is a coincidence that the son of the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of Voice of Liberty for the CIA is one of the most influential political pundits in America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When Tucker Carlson is asked about any of his connections to the CIA, he always seems to give a very confusing mix of responses. In an interview with a former member of the CIA, Sean Ryan, he was asked about it. He recounted how everyone around him growing up was in the CIA because his father was. Despite this, he also says that he had no idea what the CIA really was.
Speaker 1: You were trying to get into CIA? Yes. Vladimir Putin reminded me. I don't know how he knew that. Yeah.
I applied to CIA when I was a senior in college. What did you want to do for the CIA? Operations. Yeah, it was completely different. Completely different organization.
Well, who knows what it was, actually? I don't know. I mean, I was operating on the basis of a lot of my father's friends served as operations officers, some really wonderful guys, who I guess I probably shouldn't name, but who were always at our house and were just legit interesting people. So I applied to CIA and that whole application process then, this was 1990, and I should just say, for the record, that I, like, had no idea what the CIA was, actually. And I didn't believe any of the I think Kermit Roosevelt actually lived right down the street from us.
Are you kidding? No. Oh, man. That's cool.
Speaker 0: This isn't particularly relevant other than this being like a CIA super spy. Kermit Roosevelt Junior is a very famous intelligence officer who worked in the OSS and then the CIA. He was best known for his role in orchestrating the nineteen fifty three coup in Iran.
Speaker 1: But I didn't know I mean, but that was just the world you live in in Northwest DC. Like, I didn't I I never thought any of it was bad. And so when I applied to CIA, and I've taken a lot of crap, including from Putin, Oh, you're from a CIA family. Well, yeah, obviously my father worked in conjunction with CIA. Mean, that's what that is.
And I tried to join the CIA, but I'm not being false about it. I am a sworn enemy of the CIA at this point. No doubt about that. I just wanted a life that was interesting. I wanted to see stuff.
Speaker 0: This would all be a lot more believable conspicuous if he hadn't ended up becoming one of the most influential conservative news pundits in American history. Tucker Carlson himself says that he comes from a CIA family and that his father worked for the CIA. Alan MacLeod of Minton Press writes, Richard Carlson is an important journalist and high state official who was appointed by Ronald Reagan as director of the US Information Agency, USIA, which oversees Radio Liberty and Voice of America, which Dick was also the director. Together, these outlets are part of what The New York Times called a worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA. Their goal is to bombard enemy countries with regime change propaganda.
Until the nineteen seventies, Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA. Richard Carlson would have been running Voice of America and then the branch of the CIA that oversaw Voice of America at the height of the Cold War, basically the broadcasting wing of the CIA's propaganda machine.
Speaker 2: With the backing of CIA, of course, the organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis a vis, in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service.
Who
Speaker 1: blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 2: You for sure.
Speaker 1: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have do you I did not blow up Nord Stream.
Speaker 2: Thank you though. You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi. Is
Speaker 0: it a coincidence the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of voice of liberty for the CIA's son is one of the most influential political pundits in America?
@trumpcel - Trumpcel
@NickJFuentes Tucker Carlson is CIA https://t.co/YPveZG5HDD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson has given conflicting responses about his connections to the CIA. He stated that he grew up surrounded by CIA agents because of his father's involvement, but claimed he didn't understand what the CIA was.
Carlson said he applied to the CIA in 1990 wanting to work in operations, because his father's friends were operations officers. He mentioned that Kermit Roosevelt Jr., known for orchestrating the 1953 coup in Iran, lived near him. Despite his attempt to join, Carlson now claims to be a "sworn enemy of the CIA."
Alan MacLeod of Minton Press notes that Carlson's father, Richard Carlson, was appointed by Ronald Reagan as director of the US Information Agency (USIA), overseeing Radio Liberty and Voice of America. These outlets were described by The New York Times as a CIA-built "worldwide propaganda network." Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA until the 1970s.
Carlson was asked if the CIA was behind the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, and he denied involvement. It was questioned whether it was a coincidence that the son of the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of Voice of Liberty for the CIA is now a major political pundit.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When Tucker Carlson is asked about any of his connections to the CIA, he always seems to give a very confusing mix of responses. In an interview with a former member of the CIA, Sean Ryan, he was asked about it. He recounted how everyone around him growing up was in the CIA because his father was. Despite this, he also says that he had no idea what the CIA really was.
Speaker 1: You were trying to get into CIA? Yes. Vladimir Putin reminded me. I don't know how he knew that. Yeah.
I applied to CIA when I was a senior in college. What did you want to do for the CIA? Operations. Yeah, it was completely different. Completely different organization.
Well, who knows what it was, actually? I don't know. I mean, I was operating on the basis of a lot of my father's friends served as operations officers, some really wonderful guys, who I guess I probably shouldn't name, but who were always at our house and were just legit interesting people. So I applied to CIA and that whole application process then, this was 1990, and I should just say, for the record, that I, like, had no idea what the CIA was, actually. And I didn't believe any of the I think Kermit Roosevelt actually lived right down the street from us.
Are you kidding? No. Oh, man. That's cool.
Speaker 0: This isn't particularly relevant other than this being like a CIA super spy. Kermit Roosevelt Junior is a very famous intelligence officer who worked in the OSS and then the CIA. He was best known for his role in orchestrating the nineteen fifty three coup in Iran.
Speaker 1: But I didn't know I mean, but that was just the world you live in in Northwest DC. Like, I didn't I never thought any of it was bad. And so when I applied to CIA, and I've taken a lot of crap, including from Putin, Oh, you're from a CIA family. Well, yeah, obviously my father worked in conjunction with CIA. Mean, that's what that is.
And I tried to join the CIA, but I'm not being false about it. I am a sworn enemy of the CIA at this point. No doubt about that. I just wanted a life that was interesting. I wanted to see stuff.
Speaker 0: This would all be a lot more believable conspicuous if he hadn't ended up becoming one of the most influential conservative news pundits in American history. Tucker Carlson himself says that he comes from a CIA family and that his father worked for the CIA. Alan MacLeod of Minton Press writes, Richard Carlson is an important journalist and high state official who was appointed by Ronald Reagan as director of the US Information Agency, USIA, which oversees Radio Liberty and Voice of America, which Dick was also the director. Together, these outlets are part of what The New York Times called a worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA. Their goal is to bombard enemy countries with regime change propaganda.
Until the nineteen seventies, Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA. Richard Carlson would have been running Voice of America and then the branch of the CIA that oversaw Voice of America at the height of the Cold War, basically the broadcasting wing of the CIA's propaganda machine.
Speaker 2: With the backing of CIA, of course, the organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis a vis, in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service.
Who
Speaker 1: blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 2: You for sure.
Speaker 1: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have do you I did not blow up Nord Stream.
Speaker 2: Thank you though. You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi. Is
Speaker 0: it a coincidence the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of voice of liberty for the CIA's son is one of the most influential political pundits in America?
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
This is a scary interview During the Tucker Carlson interview with Ted Cruz it’s confirmed - Israel’s version of the CIA, called MOSSAD, spies on us in America - We as American taxpayers pay for it - American lawmakers are okay with it - They spy on the President, and that’s ok https://t.co/9ZvM3Z5UbW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 acknowledges that while intelligence is shared between the U.S. and Israel, it is likely not all intelligence. They also assume that allies, including Israel, spy on the U.S., and vice versa.
Speaker 1 states that conservatives recognize people act in their own self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S.
Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 won't say that Israel is not allowed to spy on the U.S. and that they don't want to be spied on.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Does Mossad share all of its intelligence with us?
Speaker 1: Oh, probably not, but they share a lot. We don't share all of our intelligence with them, but we share a lot. It's a close alliance.
Speaker 0: Do they spy domestically in The United States?
Speaker 1: Oh, they probably do, and we do as well. And friends and allies spy on each other. I assume all of our allies spy on us. That's okay with you? You know what?
One of the things about being a conservative is that you're not naive and utopian. You don't think humans are all Part of the reason socialism doesn't work is the the the mantra from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs doesn't work. As a conservative, I assume people act in their rational self interest.
Speaker 0: It's why conservative to pay people to spy on you?
Speaker 1: It's conservative to recognize that human beings act in their own self interest and every one of our friends spies on us. And I'm not
Speaker 0: Do you like it? That's my question. I'm not asking whether they have motive to do it. Of course, do. I understand that.
And I And by the way, I'm not mad at them. And you're an American lawmaker, so I just want to I want know. Hold on. I want to know your attitude. You said that your guiding principle, in fact, only principle, the only criterion
Speaker 1: I said guiding. The overwhelming. I wouldn't say only.
Speaker 0: Is is it in America's interest? Is it in America's interest for Israel to spy on us, including on the president?
Speaker 1: It is in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel because we get huge benefits for it. And you want us to want to see the clear
Speaker 0: But I just want to stop on the spying for a second. That it takes place, as you know, including on the President of The United States and several precedents. And I just want to know if that's okay and why is it okay? Wouldn't an American lawmaker say to a client state, You're not allowed to spy on us? I'm sorry.
I know why you want to. Not mad at you, but you're not allowed to. Sure. And I don't care for it. Don't wanna be spied on by you.
Is that it's kinda weird not to say that, but you don't seem able to say that.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Is Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset? Yes. And here's 30 minutes-worth of proof: https://t.co/UPRNcgWihR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 3 launches a documentary-style indictment of Tucker Carlson, asserting he has “many connections Tucker Carlson has to the CIA and other groups,” that Carlson is “leading a major part of America off a cliff with his false conservative platform,” and that he is “a total shill, a puppet being used to distribute propaganda.” The speaker argues the left-right paradigm is false, claiming CIA agents train people in media propaganda regardless of network (CNN or Fox). Anderson Cooper is cited as an example, with the claim he interned at the CIA and was born into the Vanderbilt family, making him the face of CNN and Carlson the face of Fox. The speaker then traces Carlson’s background in detail: born 05/16/1969 in San Francisco; his father Richard Carlson divorced and remarried Patricia Swanson; Carlson attended multiple boarding schools in Switzerland and Rhode Island; graduated from Trinity College in 1991. The claim is made that Carlson attempted to join the CIA after graduation but was denied, with the suggestion that his journalism path was encouraged by his well-connected father.
The narrative then catalogs Carlson’s father’s career: Richard Carlson started in journalism as a copy boy at the Los Angeles Times and a UPI reporter; later worked at several LA and San Diego outlets; became involved with San Diego Federal Savings and Loan (headed by Gordon Luce, a Reagan-era figure); ran for mayor of San Diego in 1984 and lost; Reagan announced his nomination to the United States Information Agency in 1986; served as Director of Voice of America, described as a propaganda broadcasting division; VOA is linked to the CIA, with the assertion that its purpose shifted from abroad broadcasting to domestic and international propaganda, including a CIA black site in Thailand (Cat’s Eye/Detention Site Green). The father’s later roles included ambassador to the Seychelles and CEO of King World Public Television; he became vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (an Israel-lobby-linked group).
The speaker asserts that Carlson’s path mirrors his father’s, arguing that Carlson’s early journalism work included policy review (Heritage Foundation publication), where Heritage Foundation’s founders (Paul Wyrick, Edwin Feulner, Joseph Coors) are described as influential, with Feulner allegedly connected to KCIA donations and UN reform task forces linked to CFR and the Project for the New American Century. The Heritage Foundation’s funding is linked to Coors, Chase Manhattan, Pfizer, Dow, Sears, GM, Amoco, Mobil, with David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan leadership invoked to support broader conspiratorial links among the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, CFR, and related networks. The claim is made that Buckley and Crystal (William Crystal) were CIA-connected or staffed, and that Tucker Carlson’s journalism career spanned outlets including Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Weekly Standard, New York Magazine, Reader’s Digest, Slate, Esquire, The New Republic, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, The Wall Street Journal, and television work for CNN, PBS, MSNBC, before Fox News.
The video then connects Carlson to Murdoch’s News Corporation (which also owned The Weekly Standard) and to Genie Energy, with other board members named such as Jacob Rothschild and James Woolsey; Carlson’s overlap with Rockefeller- and Rothschild-linked networks is highlighted, including Charlie Rose’s Vanity Fair article about a Rothschild–Rockefeller merger and Rose’s program history. The speaker argues “these overlaps” explain why Carlson ridicules 9/11 skeptics and avoids addressing Rothschilds on his show, implying his gatekeeping role.
A separate segment covers a Washington, DC climate-conspiracy joke by a city official about Rothschilds controlling the climate, followed by a joking discussion about microaggressions at UC Santa Cruz.
Speaker 3 reiterates the claim that Carlson is “CIA?” and contends mainstream media is controlled, citing Operation Mockingbird as a precedent. The speaker concludes that even if direct government documentation isn’t present, Carlson’s numerous connections and the overlaps among the elites make his CIA linkage plausible to believe, urging viewers to do their own research and turn off the television.
The transcript then shifts to a late-appearing discussion involving a Ron Paul event in Minneapolis (2008) with speakers debating 9/11, Building 7, and government involvement, with participants sharing mixed views on 9/11 conspiracy theories, evidence, and the appropriate stance on such claims.
Towards the end, Steven Jones, a Brigham Young University physicist, offers a televised segment presenting a hypothesis that explosives might have contributed to the World Trade Center collapses, including Building 7, mentioning molten metal in basements, thermite, and a kink in the collapse symmetry, while acknowledging FEMA’s report noting only a low probability for the conventional (fire) hypothesis and calling for further investigation. The exchange ends with a brief acknowledgment of the need for follow-up by viewers. A final red-string/prophecy monologue introduces a biblical-tinged conspiracy frame involving “Jews” and “the red string,” Rahab the harlot, and spies, cutting off before a concluded point.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're about the most unordinary person I know. You're an elitist. You're an asshole.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know. I'm a but see, I'm an out of the closet elitist. I don't run around pretending to be a man of the people. I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all.
Speaker 2: How do you pay your bills?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm, like, extraordinarily loaded just from, like, money I, you know, inherited.
Speaker 0: You're a trust fund baby, are you not?
Speaker 1: No. Completely. I've never needed to work. I mean, it's all just the whole cable news thing was like a phase I was going through.
Speaker 3: I will document the many connections Tucker Carlson has to the CIA and other groups. The reason I'm doing this is because right now, he is leading a major part of America off a cliff with his false conservative platform. He rages about the elite and how America seems to be going down the drain when he himself couldn't be more connected to these same elites helping to do it. He is a total shill, a puppet being used to distribute propaganda. What people need to realize is the left and right paradigm we are given is entirely false.
Whether you watch CNN or Fox, you are getting CIA agents highly trained in propaganda, usually coming from wealthy families. Take Anderson Cooper for example. He admittedly interned at the CIA and was born into the Vanderbilt family. He could be called the face of CNN just as Tucker is the face of Fox. Follow me as I take you through his career and document his highly suspect rise in journalism.
Don't forget to take notes and research these things yourself. Tucker Carlson was born on 05/16/1969 in San Francisco, California. When he was six years old, his father Richard divorced his mother Lisa and married Patricia Swanson, one of the heiresses to Swanson Enterprises most notable for their TV dinners. Carlson attended many boarding schools during his youth, including locations in Switzerland and Rhode Island. He graduated from Trinity College in Connecticut in 1991, which is known as one of the Little Ivies, which are a group of private schools which compete with Ivy League schools.
Supposedly, Tucker attempted to join the CIA when he graduated, but his application was denied. I can't find an explanation as to why he wanted to be in the CIA or why they rejected him. His father was a very well connected man in the media industry and encouraged him to pursue journalism because, quote, they'll take anybody. His father Richard started his career in journalism at the young age of 22. He had jobs as a copy boy at the Los Angeles Times as well as a reporter for United Press International, which at the time was one of the largest newswire services in the world.
He worked for a few TV stations in Los Angeles and San Diego before joining San Diego Federal Savings and Loan in 1977. The bank was headed by Gordon Luce, who was the former public affairs director for Reagan. Richard became vice president of finance within three years, and during this time, the bank had a lot of political controversies due to their connections to current and former members of the Reagan administration. In 1983, he decided to get into politics, and in 1984, ran for mayor of San Diego. He lost to his opponent, Roger Hedgecock, who was later forced from office in 1985 after it was revealed he received over $350,000 illegally during his campaign.
Coincidentally, he would also go on to become a conservative radio host. In 1986, using his connections to the White House, Reagan personally announced his intention to nominate Richard as associate director of the United States Information Agency. He became Director of Voice of America, which was a propaganda broadcasting division of USIA. He served as their longest running Director. Voice of America started in 1941 when President Roosevelt established the Foreign Broadcast Information Service as a program directed by the Office of Strategic Services, which became the CIA.
The intention stated publicly was to communicate America's views abroad, but it was really an outfit to disseminate propaganda. The first few broadcasts for Voice of America were done over British Broadcasting Corporation transmitters but expanded rapidly and fell under control of the Office of War Information in 1942. The Office of War Information was tasked with creating distributing propaganda domestically and internationally. They did this through various means such as broadcast, newspapers, posters, films, and other media. The agency was terminated by President Truman in 1945.
Their offices were transferred to the State Department and most of their responsibilities were transferred to the CIA. It should also be noted that a Voice of America relay station in Thailand was used as a CIA black site referred to as Cat's Eye or Detention Site Green. These overlaps and connections between Voice of America and the CIA should not be glossed over. In 1991, Richard Carlson was personally nominated by President George H. W.
Bush to be The U. S. Ambassador to The Seychelles, a nation of islands off the Eastern Coast Of Africa. In 1997, he became CEO of King World Public Television, which was later purchased by CBS in 1999 for $2,500,000,000 He became the vice chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which is an organization that is part of the Israel lobby in The United States. It was founded by Clifford May, who was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the project for the new American century, and vice chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Now you're starting to see that it was no mistake Tucker wanted to join the CIA and become a journalist, like father, like son. Tucker Carlson got his start in journalism when he was hired as a fact checker for policy review. This was a publication put out by the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by three men: Paul Wyrick, a political activist and commentator Edwin Feulner, an academic who attended London School of Economics, which is a Rothschild controlled school, who was also advisor to different government agencies and domestic policy consultant to Reagan, and last but not least, Joseph Coors of the Coors Brewing family. In 1975, Congress investigated the activities of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency in The US.
Mr. Feulner had met with the KCIA station chief, Kim Young Hwan, and in the early nineties, the Heritage Foundation started receiving donations from the KCIA. It should also be noted that in 2005, Mr. Feulner was appointed to a task force on UN reform, which included such people as former CIA Director James Woolsey with the goal of achieving a more effective United Nations. The task force was also supported by the Council on Foreign Relations.
In 1977, Paul Wyrick hired a man named Roger Pearson to write for policy review. In 1986, an intelligence agency watchdog publication called the Covert Action Quarterly documented Pearson's connections to James Jesus Engelton, who was the former chief of CIA counterintelligence, as well as Daniel Graham, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Heritage Foundation was largely funded by Joseph Coors through his family wealth, but it also received funding from Chase Manhattan Bank, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, Sears, General Motors, Amoco, and Mobil. David Rockefeller was CEO and Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank at the time. It should also be noted that David's grandfather, John D.
Rockefeller, who started the Standard Oil Company, had to break it up due to antitrust laws, and Amico, as well as Mobile, were once part of the company. John D. Rockefeller also donated the 16 acres of land upon which the United Nations headquarters sits in New York. In David Rockefeller's O Memoirs, he is quoted as saying, some even believe we, the Rockefeller family, are part of a secret cabal working against the best interest of The United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalist and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure. One world, if you will.
If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. He also funded and was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. A quick little fun fact. Before the homosexual political commentator David Brock, founder of Media Matters for America, a leftist propaganda outlet which received funding from George Soros and given office space by alleged pedophile and human trafficker John Podesta, he was on the board of the Heritage Foundation. He supported Hillary Clinton for president twice and dated James Alifantis, has been accused of being a pedophile and human trafficker.
He is also a friend of Lynn Rothschild. Lynn Rothschild supposedly abhors Trump and fawns over Clinton publicly, yet her and Trump go way back as well. Also, here's a photo of Trump laughing it up with happy Rockefeller, wife of former vice president and New York governor Nelson Rockefeller. It's a great example to show you that these people are all liars and actors. They will fill whatever role they need to fill when they need to fill it.
Sometimes that involves swinging to the total opposite side of the false paradigm politically if it's advantageous to the agenda of the elite. Pick your central banking puppet, left or right. It's all controlled, and these people are shameless whores. When Tucker Carlson left his job at policy review, he went to work for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette under the tutelage of editor Paul Greenberg. Mister Greenberg was very well connected having his pieces published across 1,400 different newspapers within the Tribune Content Agency Syndicate at the time.
He also won a Pulitzer Prize in 1969 and appeared on major television networks as commentator on talk shows such as Charlie Rose. Now I can't actually prove that mister Greenberg was CIA, but when I started to look at a few publications he put out, it made me start to wonder. In one article entitled How to Break the CIA, published on jewishworldreview.com 09/02/2009, he defends the CIA from what he believes to be unfair persecution. He defends the torture of possibly innocent people as justified in the, quote, war on terror. When referring to the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he says, are we supposed to be sorry about that and proceed to punish those who uncovered these plans?
On what theory? That no good deed for your country should go unpunished? He also boohoos about the morale of the CIA and how investigations might increase their agents' anxiety. In another article by Mr. Greenberg entitled Hooray for Snooping, published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette October 2333, he talks about a national conference of editorial writers he attended in Calgary, Alberta in the seventies or eighties.
In the article, he says that, quote, that year at Calgary, one solemn resolution proposed that we stop talking to the CIA since a number of journalists abroad had been assassinated on the pretext that we were all CIA agents, capitalist spies, tools of imperialism, and, well, you know the rest. As if the killers were so lacking in imagination, they couldn't come up with some other excuse to do away with us if they hadn't invented this one. So there we were, an all too solemn convention assembled, First Amendment or no, debating whether we should gag ourselves. I dissented, being an American, and unaccustomed to being told whom I could talk to or not talk to. Memory grows furtive, but I believe the resolution was defeated.
That it was ever considered was disgraceful enough. It occurs to some of us that if the CIA and FBI and NSA had been allowed to talk even to each other before 09/11/2001, that date might not have become another one that will live in infamy. If only big data could have been mined back then the way it is now, the country might have been a lot safer along with the thousands of innocent victims who found themselves in the Twin Towers that fateful day and others rushing to their rescue as firefighters and cops, and the troops who were stationed at the Pentagon as airliners were turned into flaming engines of destruction, their passengers and crews wiped out, including those who, like the ones aboard Valiant Flight United 93, were the first to mount a counterattack against the terrorist in the still continuing war. It would seem mister Greenberg, a very well connected columnist, was very sympathetic to the ambitions of the CIA for seemingly no reason. It should also be noted he was Jewish and a Zionist.
When Tucker left the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, he went to work for the Weekly Standard News magazine in 1995. It was founded by William Crystal and Fred Barnes. William Crystal is Jewish and the son of Irving Crystal, who's been described as, quote, the godfather of neoconservatism. Irving Crystal was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and worked for the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The Congress for Cultural Freedom was a group started by a Jewish CIA agent named Mikkel Jocelyn in 1950.
It distributed anti communist propaganda in 35 countries and published over 20 magazines. In 1966, The New York Times are in a series of articles exposing it as a front for the CIA to transfer money to the State Department and the United States Information Agency, the same agency which broadcasted Voice of America, which Tucker's dad was the director of. In the book, Finks, How the CIA Tricked the World's Best Riders, author Joel Whitney talks about, quote, how the good versus bad CIA is a false divide and that the cultural cold warriors again and again used anticommunism as a lever to spy relentlessly on leftist and indeed writers of all political inclinations and thereby pushed US democracy a little closer to the Soviet model of the surveillance state. He alleges that Crystal was in fact a CIA employee, The man who referred to Irving as the godfather of neoconservatism was a man named Jonah Greenberg, also Jewish and editor in chief of The National Review, a semimonthly magazine. The magazine was founded by William F.
Buckley Jr. And has played a significant role in the development of conservatism in The United States. Like Krystal, Buckley was also outed as a CIA employee in Joel Whitney's book. It should also be noted that Fred Barnes, cofounder of The Weekly Standard, currently moderates a show on Voice of America called Issues in the News, again, the same program Tucker's father, Richard, was director of. It would seem William Crystal was also a fan of Paul Greenberg, Tucker's first mentor at the Arkansas Democrat Gazette since he quoted him in an article he published in the Washington Examiner 11/01/2004 entitled the 09/11 connection.
In the article, he quotes Paul as saying, everything we had thought, assumed, expected in the golden nineties hadn't been so. The surface piece of the nineteen nineties had been bought at a great price. On nine eleven, a failure of American leadership was revealed, a failure to look ahead and act forcefully to forestall threats, to do what Bush has called, quote, the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom. William's father Irving, alleged CIA employee, also only had kind words to say about mister Greenberg when he wrote the forward to his 1991 book, Resonant Lives, 50 Figures of Consequence. He said, and I quote, our intellectual and spiritual elites today are, with some notable exemptions, semi educated at best.
This explains why someone like Mr. Greenberg has not received the recognition he deserves. Oh, yes, he has won a Pulitzer Prize and other awards, which is nice, but these are tributes to his journalistic talents as a columnist and editorial writer. As a master of the brief moral essay, he has yet to come into his own. These men all seem to connect to one another in some way, and they all seemingly support the, quote, alleged war on terror while increasing the size of the government in the name of preserving freedom.
They protect Israel and promote their agenda while scapegoating Muslims for false flag attacks meant to justify giving more power to their think tanks and intelligence agencies which answer to nobody except the people lining their pockets. After leaving The Weekly Standard, Tucker then went on to write for New York Magazine, Reader's Digest, Slate, Esquire, The New Republic, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, and The Wall Street Journal. He would also go to work on camera for CNN, PBS, and MSNBC before finally settling into his role at Fox News as the poster boy for conservative values. During those years, he also somehow found time to appear on shows like King of Queens, 30 Rock, and Dancing with the Stars. While he is now on Fox News as arguably their most popular personality, this wasn't his first tango with News Corporation, which owns Fox News.
News Corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch also owned The Weekly Standard where Tucker worked under Bill Crystal. News Corporation headquarters is located in none other than the Rockefeller Center Complex in New York. Rupert Murdoch is also on the board of Genie Energy, an American energy company located out of New Jersey. Other noteworthy people on the board of Genie Energy include Jacob Rothschild, the head of the Rothschild banking dynasty, and James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, who, if you remember earlier, was also on the UN reform task force in 2005 with Heritage Foundation founder Edwin Feulner, whose goal was to create a more effective United Nations, the same United Nations which resides on land donated by John D. Rockefeller.
In a 2015 article written by Charlie Rose in Vanity Fair, he details a merger between Jacob Rothschild and David Rockefeller. Rothschild bought 37% of shares in Rockefeller Financial Services through his RIT Capital Partners. This is the same Charlie Rose who would have Arkansas columnist Paul Greenberg on his show to talk politics and the same Paul Greenberg who was held in such high regard by William Crystal and his father Irving. There are so many overlapping connections that can be made that I probably missed dozens, if not more, during my research into the topic. Given these connections to the CIA, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, etcetera, it's no wonder Tucker Carlson ridicules people who believe that 09:11 was an inside job and calls these people parasites.
It's also no wonder Tucker Carlson won't seriously address the Rothschilds on his show as his boss probably wouldn't be too happy even though they have so much control and influence. Whenever people bring up legitimate issues, it's his job to mock them so his viewers won't get to the truth of the matter.
Speaker 4: Washington DC experienced a mild snowfall last week. Luckily, city councilman Trayon White was on it. He knows why it happened. Watch this.
Speaker 5: It's just started snowing out of
Speaker 6: nowhere this morning, man. Y'all better pay attention
Speaker 5: to this climate control, man. This climate manipulation, and DC keep talking about we are resilient city, and that's a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate. It should create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.
Speaker 4: Yep. The Rothschilds control the climate. The Rothschilds, of course, are a wealthy Jewish banking clan. They're included in a great many conspiracy theories, but those theories rarely give them credit for the weather. That's an ambitious new twist.
Mark Stein is an author and columnist and a part time meteorologist, and he joins us tonight. What are you making? So this is by the way, I live here, so you can laugh all you want, but that's actually my city councilman speaking there. The Rothschilds control the weather. Did you know that?
Speaker 7: Well, I did actually, Tucker. They've they they bought the weather from God back in 1929, when he had a bit of a liquidity problem after the Wall Street crash, and, they keep it in the wine cellars at the Chateau Mouton Rothschild estate in France. And, they're able to micro target the climate. For example, it was light snow in your part of Washington, but I gather in the stairwell of Trayon White's, apartment building, he actually had an avalanche just on his floor. That's that's how micro targeted the big Jew weather machine is able to be.
Speaker 6: And he may and, by the way,
Speaker 7: you may you may think it's a light snowfall, but if you actually examine it, it's actually small pieces of gefelter fish, which is why it doesn't melt. And that's why the Jews control the snowplow business. So they scoop all the gefelter fish in Washington away, and they use it to make Louis Farrakhan calypso albums, which they put out to discredit, Louis Farrakhan from telling the truth about the synagogue of Satan. It all makes sense.
Speaker 6: See, the funny thing is I mean, I don't
Speaker 4: know if it's funny. It's actually so appalling and shocking that it's it's hard. I'm just gonna laugh about it. That was that was you made me feel better about a city out of control. So then I wanna run this by you.
May maybe you can make me feel better about this too. There's a new uproar on social media over microaggressions at UC Santa Cruz. The school has assembled a list of microaggressions. Tucker
Speaker 3: Carlson seems to be everywhere. He has become the face of the conservative and right wing movement in The United States, surely due to the incredible amount of connections he has to intelligence agencies and the government. This is why the gatekeepers and the media attempt to give him credibility and publish stories like how he's being spied on by the NSA or how a seemingly random man confronted him in Montana at a fly fishing shop and insulted him trying to start a confrontation, and it turns out that the man was actually an employee of the Asia Foundation, which was created in 1951 by the CIA as a front organization to distribute propaganda. If you had any doubts before watching this that Tucker Carlson was controlled opposition, I hope the research I presented will put that to bed. Mainstream media is all controlled in its one big incestuous pit.
Don't worship these people as heroes because they will sell you down the river in a heartbeat. Is Tucker Carlson CIA? Well, you can't prove that directly, but once you pour through all of his connections, you would find it incredibly hard not to believe that is the case. About the only thing we're missing at this point is official government documents detailing as much, which I am sure will come out at some point in the future. The CIA has a very long and documented history of infiltrating and controlling the media.
Operation Mockingbird is a great example of that. Tucker Carlson is just one of many examples you could make. Remember to always do your own research and turn off the television.
Speaker 6: Good to see you after, we met briefly at the event in 2008 in Minneapolis for Ron Paul.
Speaker 1: Oh, that
Speaker 6: was fun.
Speaker 2: I remember that.
Speaker 6: But but you had to leave early. What happened? The
Speaker 2: truth is stopping. The truth is stopping. I'll tell you why.
Speaker 1: I didn't bail on Ron Paul. No.
Speaker 6: I don't
Speaker 2: It's when Jesse Ventura got up and started saying 09:11 was an inside job.
Speaker 6: He didn't say that. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. He did say that. Answer your question. Sure. It wasn't controversial.
It was stupid. And if there's any evidence that the government is behind nine eleven, looks you know, I believe anything if there's evidence, but there isn't any. So knock it off. That's my view.
Speaker 6: Okay. But And
Speaker 2: I said that to him.
Speaker 6: Sure. Sure.
Speaker 8: But one stupid person says something
Speaker 6: stupid at Ron Paul event.
Speaker 2: No. No. But I I hate that. And and by the way, I am open to almost any crackpot theory about anything. It's just on that subject, come on.
You know what I mean? That's too much. That even for me.
Speaker 6: So just out of curiosity then, what what's your take on Building 7? Which explanation do you believe?
Speaker 7: Yeah. Come
Speaker 6: on. It's like it's a slick. No. That's a serious question. Which explanation did did
Speaker 2: it Okay. Which explanation?
Speaker 4: I I There's two explanations.
Speaker 6: It was either it was it was pulled or it was isolated pockets of fire on the building that blew that that were Let
Speaker 2: me let me get let
Speaker 6: me The towers coming down. They're coming down.
Speaker 2: This a no win conversation, so I'm not gonna continue it. But let me just say one The macro my macro view is is the obvious one, which is the buildings came down. There's a bunch of nutcases. We're playing into them.
Speaker 6: Okay. So are you still supporting Ron Paul? So are you supporting anybody in the race this year? No.
Speaker 2: I don't support. I mean, I don't even vote. I don't even vote. I'm hardly objective. I'm honest.
I'm not objective.
Speaker 6: There you go. Certainly not afraid to speak your mind.
Speaker 2: No. I'm not. No. You can assess my views. They're very clear.
You don't have any But I hate that nine eleven crap. Wish they just kicked those people out.
Speaker 6: I mean was supposed to be on the ninety third floor. Really? Oh. It's important for people and their families still involved to know the truth whether or not the government was involved or whether it was terrorists, but there's a history of government sponsored terror throughout the past century. I'm Yeah.
Exactly. So what do you mean kick them out?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Whatever.
Speaker 6: You you anyone who's a 09:11 intruder should be should be kicked out of the the country? Of course not. I don't, you know, I don't
Speaker 2: I don't even believe in parking tickets. I mean, didn't you please? I just don't I think that people, before saying something that heavy, ought to present real evidence and not just it's a coincidence or the questions remain a dumb
Speaker 6: I think like steel doesn't weaken until 2,400 degrees is evidence that that jet fuel couldn't cause a collapse of the tower from being at
Speaker 2: the top. Except the thing is it did.
Speaker 9: So
Speaker 10: problem. We we gave them a lot
Speaker 6: of money.
Speaker 10: See, see, pretty much trained them. I mean, mean, that's that's pretty much enough evidence for me.
Speaker 2: Did the government brought down the Twin Towers? You know
Speaker 10: what? The government that the government was involved in bringing that into our because they would not
Speaker 6: be trained because who because who trained them? The government trained them. The CIA trained them. The special ops trained
Speaker 2: them. Alright. I've I've had this debate so many times. It's not you know, I don't know. I just it it seems to me that it it's kinda beneath, sort of beneath, like, adult discourse even, really, I guess.
And it and it definitely discredits otherwise good ideas.
Speaker 6: I just think that the implications if if the government was involved, the implications are so vast that it should be looked into whether or not it seems ridiculous. Ridiculous.
Speaker 11: So for family members of
Speaker 6: the victims that are asking questions and want the evidence that's been withheld by the government released, you would say that they're less than adults somehow for wanting that
Speaker 2: I would say that parasites like you make it much worse for them. That's what
Speaker 10: I would say.
Speaker 12: I'm a parasite now?
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's it's filthy to say things like that with no evidence, and you have none. So you should stop. That's my point. Well, this is deal with this
Speaker 10: is insult of politics today.
Speaker 4: Back. Millions of people watch the horror of 09:11 right before their very eyes live on television. Two planes crashing into the World Trade Center. And less than a couple of hours later, both towers, of course, collapsing. My next guest says that hijackers may not have brought down the towers by themselves.
Here to explain his controversial theory, Steven Jones. He's a professor of physics at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Professor Jones, thanks for coming on.
Speaker 9: Sure. Thanks, Tucker.
Speaker 4: Well, just sum up this, obviously, your theory, the one sentence that I just explained in the intro contradicts what we all think we know about how these towers collapsed. Quickly sum up your explanation for what happened.
Speaker 9: Well, I'd like to start with this paper that you referred to. It's available online. What I'm doing, Tucker, is presenting evidence, but it's a hypothesis to be tested. That's a big difference from a conclusion. And so I just wanted to clarify that.
But to sum up, I've looked at the official reports by FEMA and so on regarding the collapse of these buildings. I'd like to look at the collapse of Building 7 in just a minute. It was not even hit by a jet. So we should look at that one.
Speaker 4: Two towers. The explanation has been that the fire inside was so intense that it weakened the structural steel and that each floor collapsed collapsed down upon the next in a pancake fashion and they imploded in on themselves. Is that essentially I think what people think?
Speaker 9: Doctor. Yeah. That's basically it. Yeah. And so what I've done is to analyze these reports.
I would like to do a little experiment with you, Tucker, if I could. I sent out a video clip of the collapse of Building 7 because most people haven't actually seen that one and that's the crux of the argument I'm presenting.
Speaker 4: Sum up very quickly the argument for us. You believe there were explosives in the buildings planted by someone, detonated.
Speaker 9: Is that correct? In other words, hypothesis to be tested there's two hypotheses here. One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse. The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse. And so then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I've done that in my in my 25 page paper.
Speaker 4: I wanna read you a quote from the Deseret Morning News, a paper in Utah from you. I'm quoting now. It is quite plausible that explosives were preplanted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, you, which were actually diversion tactic. Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all. That's, I would think, pretty offensive to a lot of people listening.
Do you have any evidence for that?
Speaker 9: Well, not to the Muslims, I might say. I've got a lot of emails saying
Speaker 4: I'm sure your writings have been greeted with glee in Islamabad and Peshawar and places like that.
Speaker 9: Well, I haven't received any notes from there, but just good people. I have Muslim friends. Let me read for example, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. Really want to do this experiment with you.
Speaker 4: We don't have lot of time for experiments, Professor, but if you could just give us one thing to hold on to. You make these claims or appear to make these claims. Do you have any
Speaker 9: collapse of Building 7. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
Speaker 4: Okay. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if we
Speaker 4: can, but to specify that is World Trade Center Building 7, smaller than the other two, not hit by a plane, of yet it collapsed.
Speaker 9: Right. It's 47 stories.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 9: 24 steel columns in the center. Right. Trusses asymmetrically supported. Now, I can't see what you're seeing.
Speaker 4: Are you rolling that? No, we just see the building. And just so our viewers know, the explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of diesel fuel stored in a lower level of that which caught fire and the resulting fire collapsed the building.
Speaker 9: That's basically it. But as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course, the best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, the fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation, analyses are needed to resolve this issue and I agree with that. But they admit there's only a low probability. And if you look at the collapse, see what I've studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle, that's called the kink, which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.
Speaker 4: Professor, that we are out of time and I'm not sure that you've J.
Speaker 9: One fully other thing I want to mention
Speaker 1: about Doctor.
Speaker 4: Okay, if you can hit it,
Speaker 6: really quick.
Speaker 9: Doctor. Here we go. Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings. Yet, all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel. So what is this molten metal?
It's a direct evidence for the use of high temperature explosives such as thermite. Thermite produces molten iron as an end product. Okay. So, we do have Yeah, it's very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.
Speaker 4: Professor, we're going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow-up to do just that. We appreciate you coming on. Even if I don't understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them. Thanks. Okay.
Speaker 13: The red string is a symbol to show the Jews that they are helping the Jews usher in the new world order. The reason they do it is so that the Jews spare them from the nasty population that is happening. Not many people are allowed to live in a new world order. In the Old Testament, the book of Joshua, God was giving the Israelites the land of Canaan. Joshua sent in spies.
The Canaanites found out and were searching for the spies. The spies got help from a harlot called Rahab. The Canaanites went to Rahab's house, and she told them she did not see anyone. When they left, Rahab, the harlot, made a deal with Israelite spies. Since she helped the spies, she asked that they spare her and her family.
The Israelite spies agreed and Rahab let them down on a red rope from the on the wall, and the spies escaped safely. The Israelites killed all the Canaanites except Rahab and her fam