TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@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
@beinlibertarian - Being Libertarian
If Tucker Carlson interviews Putin how many years will it take for people to analyze what he’s saying in a term that’s even slightly more complex than “good guys vs bad guys?” https://t.co/kOQi55LD5z
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Bush administration accuses President Hussein of deceiving the world about his weapons of mass destruction. A new UN resolution has been proposed, which, if passed, would authorize war due to his failure to prove disarmament. When asked about the new resolution, Speaker 1 maintains their position that they have not pursued any weapons of mass destruction and questions the need for issuing new resolutions. They emphasize that their stance remains unchanged and they prioritize their independence and dignity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Bush administration says president Hussein is just trying to fool the world one more time about his missiles and his weapons of mass destruction. And he faces a new UN resolution accusing him of failing to prove he has disarmed. A resolution which, if passed, would in effect Authorize war. Will the new proposed United Nations resolution, the one that's just out this week. Will this make any difference at all in your position?
Speaker 1: The basic position, there is no change. We have not pursued any weapons of mass destruction. So what do they want to issue new resolutions about now?
Speaker 0: So basically, no change in your position?
Speaker 1: The basic stand of our position is clear. We do not compromise our independence. For our dignity
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
FLASHBACK: Last time Tucker Carlson tried to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin, he says the NSA under the Biden Administration was spying on his Emails and leaked them to media. https://t.co/9OYS13ZJbh
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker reveals that the NSA, the largest intelligence agency in the Biden administration, had been reading their private emails. They express shock at the government's spying and criticize the lack of outrage in Washington. The speaker shares that their emails were leaked to media outlets to portray them as a disloyal American and a Russian operative. They highlight the hypocrisy of demonizing Putin while the Chinese government gains control over the country. The speaker emphasizes that the NSA illegally unmasked them, violating the law that protects the identities of American citizens. They call for accountability from the NSA director, Paul Nakasone, and the Director of National Intelligence, April Haines. The speaker concludes by stating the importance of preventing unaccountable spy agencies from discrediting individuals through leaked emails.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Biden administration's largest intelligence gathering agency, the NSA, had been reading my private emails. Even saying that out loud is weird. It's one of those segments we never thought we would do ever, but the country has changed that much that fast. And honestly, the whole thing was kinda shocking. The government was spying on us.
Come on. It seemed crazy, but it's true and no one in Washington appeared to be shocked in the slightest. In fact, the usual shills right after our segment had a ready explanation for is either it never happened at all. They said just a cable news show lying for ratings or there must have been a good reason it happened and they began furiously making excuses for why the NSA did it. A powerful heavily politicized spy agency surveilling journalists who've been critical of the regime.
No problem. Perfectly normal. Just don't call it spying. But it's not normal at all. It is 3rd world.
And as we told you repeatedly, it did happen. Now that has been confirmed. Yesterday, we learned that sources in the so called intelligence community told at least one reporter in Washington what was in those is emails. My emails. There was nothing scandalous in there.
Thank God. We're happy to report that. Late this spring, I contacted a couple of people I thought could help get us an interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin. I told nobody I was doing this other than my executive producer, Justin Wells. I wasn't embarrassed not trying to interview Putin.
He's obviously newsworthy. I'm an American citizen. I can interview anyone I want and I plan to. But still in this case, I decided to keep it quiet. I figured that any kind of publicity would rattle the Russians and make the interview less likely to happen.
But the by my administration found out anyway by reading my emails. I learned from a whistleblower the NSA plan to leak the contents of those emails to media outlets. Is, why would they do that? Well, the point, of course, was to paint me as a disloyal American. A Russian operative, been called that before.
A stooge of the Kremlin, a traitor doing the bidding of a foreign adversary. And of course, I'm the hardly the only person who's been accused of those things in the last several years. We've seen this movie several times now. At the same moment, the communist Chinese government increases its already stunning level of control over this country. Our leaders prattle on about the threat of Vladimir Putin.
He's an evildoer, they tell us, a totalitarian dictator. Is Vladimir Putin does things that no American leader would even consider. He runs domestic disinformation campaigns. He lies to the public. Is, he punishes people for opposing him or for believing the wrong things.
He even uses intelligence is to spy on his own citizens beyond the pale stuff. So no decent American would interview Vladimir Putin, at least no reporter from is news. That was the point they wanted to make. That's why they plan to leak the contents of my emails to news organizations. And yesterday, as noted, we learned they actually did Even now, some in the media are claiming that we deserve this.
Emailing with people who know Putin, are you? Of course, the NSA is watching you. That's what you is bad. But that's hardly the point. By law, the NSA is required to keep secret the identities of American citizens who've been caught up in its vast domestic spying operations.
So by law, I should have been identified internally merely as a US journalist or American journalists. That's the law. But that's not how I was identified. I was identified by name. I was unmasked.
People in the building learned who I was. And then my name and the contents of my emails left that building at the NSA and wound up with a news organization in Washington. That is illegal. In fact, it is precisely what this law was designed to prevent in the first place. We cannot have intelligence agencies used as is instruments of political control.
Both parties used to agree on that. Democrats were especially adamant on the point, but not anymore. So that's exactly what is happening here. We need to find out how this happened. Who did it?
Who allowed it? Paul Naccassoni would know the answer. Paul Naccassoni is the highly political director of the NSA. Paul Naccassoni would have been required personally to to approve my unmasking. That's how it works.
Paul Macassoni should explain who asked for that unmasking, and he should do it immediately. April Haines would also likely know the answer. Haines is the even more political director of the of National Intelligence. She oversees all of it. She may have approved the unmasking as well.
She would certainly know who asked for it and to who approved it. That's her job to know. She should release that information immediately tonight and if April Haynes does not release that information, she should be forced to release that information. Is, we don't have a lot of powers to TV show, but we're gonna keep pushing for that because it matters, not just to us, but to the entire country. You can't have a democracy in a place where unaccountable spy agencies keep people in the line by leaking the contents of their emails, discrediting them with their own emails, which they thought were private.
You can't it doesn't work if you allow And we suspect congressional Republicans will also demand an answer. Many have finally awakened to the fact that the intelligence agencies, which they have blindly supported for so long, are not in fact their friends. They're not the friends of anyone in this country. They are dangerous. That's obvious.
In the meantime, we're happy to have one of the very few people in American journalism who
@LukaszukAB - Thomas A. Lukaszuk
.@ABDanielleSmith since you and Tucker Carlson simultaneously pushed identical narrative on Covid, Russia’s #Ukraine invasion, LGBTQ & paren rights, and now he flies from your visit to Moscow to meet Putin, comment may be in order? #ableg #cdnpoli https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/10/10/why-russia-embraces-tucker-carlson-a82715
Why Russia Embraces Tucker Carlson - The Moscow Times
Opinion | When Russian state media scrambled to build a narrative to justify Moscow’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, they received what must have felt like a gift.
themoscowtimes.com
@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?
@simonateba - Simon Ateba
BREAKING: Russia's Sputnik asks Moscow residents about Tucker Carlson and they say he is a “courageous journalist who is willing to challenge the anti-Russian propaganda” dominating the Western mainstream media. WATCH https://t.co/wfIDQXBugE
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Russian journalist praises an American journalist, Carlson, for his boldness and honesty in expressing his views on the problems in the US. Despite facing backlash for going against the anti-Russian propaganda, Carlson's courage is admired. The Russian journalist appreciates Carlson's objective reporting and hopes he will have a meeting with President Putin during his visit to Russia. The Russian people hold Carlson in high regard and wish him well.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: На сегодняшний день, на мой взгляд, самый смелый и самый отважный американский журналист, который смело высказывает свое видение, свою позицию.
Speaker 1: Так как Карлсон? Он часто вникает в новостях, он правду говорит. Поэтому у него, кстати, проблемы в США из-за этого. Он сейчас, насколько я понимаю, сюда приехал. Это не знаю, пустят ли его обратно.
Speaker 2: Я очень уважаю за его смелость, за его нормальное человеческое мнение о том, что это происходит за его разумность, за его логику, за его понимание, где добро, где это. И что он не боится это все высказывать, несмотря на то, что он живет в стране, которая заварила всю эту, как это сказать, фашистскую кашу.
Speaker 3: Меня поразила откровенность, в которой он рассказывает о реальных проблемах, которые есть в данном случае в США. С очень хорошей подачей информации, с хорошим чувством юмора. Я слышал о том, что он приехал в Россию. Ну что ж, добро пожаловать! Я считаю, что держит марку порядочного журналиста, честного, открытого.
Speaker 0: Несмотря за тем, что он идет против это общей антироссийской пропагандой, которая в США проводится. И он высказывает свое мнение. Под этим цепляет.
Speaker 4: Ну и надо сказать, что очень положительно отношусь, потому что это объективный журналист, который это реально то, что происходит в мире, несмотря на то, что его позиция не воспринимается особенно демократами в США, особенно это сторонником Байдена. Я очень рад, что он прибыл в Россию. Мне рассказали, что он уже посетил Большой я думаю, что он здесь много чего увидит и узнает, что в России многие к нему относятся очень большим уважением и желаем ему здоровья, благополучия пусть он продлит работу. Я тоже буду рад, если вдруг у него состоится встреча с нашим президентом Владимиром Владимировичем Путиным. Это было вообще великолепно!
@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™
@TuckerCarlson The truth about Russia and Ukraine. https://t.co/1W7AHktNcb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses US interference in Ukraine and its implications. It mentions the historical background of Western Ukraine siding with the Nazis during World War 2 and the emergence of extremist groups in Ukraine. It highlights the influence of the CIA, US State Department, and IMF in Ukraine's affairs, including orchestrating a coup against Yanukovych. The video also touches on the war in Ukraine and its impact on globalization. It suggests that the conflict is driven by the desire for control over Ukraine's resources and the deep state's involvement. It concludes by mentioning the need for dialogue and a "great reset" to address global issues.
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. 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 association agreement by the International Monetary Fund in their typical conquer by debt offer, that would financially ruin the Ukraine and place them at the mercy of the World Bank. Yanukovych declined their 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 Boy, and I 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 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. The
Speaker 3: world's biggest investment fund says the war in Ukraine has put an And 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 in 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 they're the 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 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 The 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 wanna 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 set back 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're 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 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 u 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 u Vacation of Ukraine, he was called crazy. But the idea of a government, 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 7: 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 Sunday, we we can in any case, we can, and so it's a World Economic Forum, is a very open and as a open platform to integrate everybody who is willing To address those issues in a spirit, which means, to exercise here, true global citizenship.
@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
Tucker Carlson has been accused of spreading numerous lies and misinformation over the years. Examples include falsely claiming to be the only journalist trying to interview Putin, blaming windmills for the Texas electrical grid collapse, spreading false conspiracy theories, and promoting debunked claims about COVID-19 and the vaccine. There are also allegations of his close ties to Hunter Biden, his association with a racist writer, and his defamation of individuals like Ray Epps. Additionally, leaked text messages suggest that Carlson privately acknowledged there was not enough fraud to change the outcome of the 2020 election, despite promoting the opposite view on air. Carlson's focus on shaping right-wing narratives and his disregard for facts have been criticized.
@dartagnank - Xanderman 🇺🇲 🇧🇷
#TuckerCarlson #RésuméofLies #PutinAsset #Receipts These are some of the more egregious lies from Tucker over the years. And I might as well start off with the most recent example when Tucker pretends he is being a courageous person for trying to interview Putin, insisting no one else had the guts to try it. In fact, real journalists all around the world have been trying to get an interview with Putin. This remark was so dishonest that even the Kremlin had to fact check him. What does it say about your credibility when your BS is too much even for the Kremlin😆 - tinyurl.com/mss6vb97 Fun Fact: Tucker Carlson was Hunter Biden's next door neighbor and close friend for years. Something he never really disclosed to any of his listeners while at FOX. At one point Tucker and his wife begged Hunter to use some of his "Biden influence" to help get their son into Georgetown. - tinyurl.com/vw8vavur (But even with Hunter's letter, their kid was too stupid for Georgetown and he didn't get in. - tinyurl.com/yc2y8wka ) When the Texas electrical grid collapsed during a winter freeze, Carlson immediately blamed windmills. He falsely claimed the state had "become totally reliant on windmills." This was quickly debunked and Tucker could have easily avoided embarrassment on this matter had he simply looked into it. But as it is with most fake news pundits, he heard something on social media and ran with it as "breaking news." Tucker Carlson spread false homophobic conspiracy regarding the attack on Paul Pelosi -tinyurl.com/3tfffmpj Tucker Carlson lies about John Hopkins "admitting that lockdowns didn't actually work." -tinyurl.com/29rmt92p Tucker Carlson deceptively edited a Twitter clip to make false claims about racial preferences in COVID-19 treatment -tinyurl.com/52xmz58m Tucker Carlson spread a well debunked claim about covid-19 deaths -tinyurl.com/3r8ezxbp During the pandemic Tucker was using dubious data from VAERS, an unverified database for "vaccine incident reports" that anyone can submit to, to claim the COVID-19 vaccine campaign is the deadliest vaccination campaign in US history. FOX and Russian media have an incestuous affair as the Russians promote Tucker Carlson as a truth teller while he attacks Ukraine and defends Russia. -tinyurl.com/5aknvnc6 Tucker Carlson's texts with Alex Jones reveal he knew the severity of the virus and tried to warn Trump about taking it seriously, but when Trump chose not to, Tucker decided to follow Trump's lead and downplay it as well. -tinyurl.com/y4sw5hkp Tucker Carlson's close friend who was responsible for writing most of the material for his shows, was exposed after racist social media posts and he immediately resigned. The fact that a Neo-Nazi was writing the content for Tucker Carlson's nightly shows isn't really surprising given the constant "White Man's Plight" themes that dominated his segments -tinyurl.com/34n2djbx Tucker Carlson frequently reported to his audiences that Ray Epps was an undercover Fed who helped stage the Jan 6th attack to make MAGA folks look bad. Ray Epps is actually a Conservative Trump voter and was a fan of Tucker Carlson! He is now in hiding because of the death threats against him after Carlson defamed him. He is also demanding a retraction from FOX's repeated lies about him. -tinyurl.com/ez7arp5n During the 2020 election, Tucker Carlson falsely claimed three people voted in Georgia even though they were dead. CNN quickly debunked this when it interviewed one of the voters he alluded to. Tucker was forced to go on air and apologize, although he only apologized for lying about one of the three, insisting the other two were actually dead. CNN then subsequently found out that those two voters were also alive, and Tucker never did his minimal research to see if perhaps there were multiple voters in the same district with the some exact name. Carlson initially spent several nights dedicated to these false claims, but he dedicated only 8 seconds apologizing for getting it wrong about one. He never acknowledged being wrong about the other two, giving his audience the impression that while he was wrong about one example, his overall argument about dead voters remained strong. A legal filing from the Dominion lawsuit unveiled text messages from Tucker Carlson that produced the stunning revelation that Carlson never believed there was voter fraud that threw the election to Biden. And yet, he still promoted those view anyway. Carlson wrote privately that Trump needed to concede the election, agreeing that "there wasn't enough fraud to change the outcome" of the 2020 election. Then on November 21, Carlson said that it was "shockingly reckless" to claim that Dominion rigged the election When FOX News journalist Jacqui Heinrich tweeted that "top election infrastructure officials" had found there to be "no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," Tucker Carlson was livid that she was doing her job by reporting facts that undermined the FOX narrative of election fraud. So he immediately requested that Sean Hannity have her terminated for doing her job: "Please get her fired. Seriously...What the fuck? I'm actually shocked....It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It's measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke." Tucker Carlson was never interested in reporting facts, he was only interested in shaping Right Wing narratives that benefit his ideology. And he also made it clear that lying and deceiving his audience was necessary for his personal wealth to increase. Prior to his termination at FOX, Carlson falsely claimed U.S. troops were actually fighting in Ukraine. "As we speak American soldiers are fighting Russian soldiers." This lie was quickly corrected Jacqui Heinrich, one of the few real journalists working at FOX, and the same woman Tucker wanted fired for reporting the facts. Former FOX reporter Carl Cameron explains why Tucker Carlson lies about vaccines -tinyurl.com/muten9va
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.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
Watch The Media Meltdown Over Tucker/Putin Interview
Video Transcript AI Summary
Former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson conducted an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. While some criticize Carlson for being a right-wing conspiracy theorist and a useful idiot for Putin, others argue that he is not a journalist and lacks credibility. They accuse him of spreading propaganda and misinformation, particularly regarding Ukraine. Carlson's interview with Putin is seen as a platform for promoting the Russian president's agenda. Critics express concern about the influence and reach of Carlson's disinformation, describing it as gobsmacking and terrifying. They believe that some Americans yearn for a leader who can suppress opposition, control the media, and act with impunity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson is in Moscow, and the Kremlin confirms he has just conducted an interview with Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: Putin talks to an American friend. The Russian president turning to right wing conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 2: We're in Moscow tonight. Tucker Carlson just landed a big Lucien interview. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and he's getting slammed for it. Sleeping with the enemy goes this headline, and this fiction Is Tucker Carlson a Putin pawn?
Speaker 3: They're not Tucker loves Russia. Russia loves Tucker. Putin clearly wants to speak to an American right wing audience, so he's using Tucker Carlson to get the message out.
Speaker 4: What does that tell you about Tucker Carlson and right wing media and also Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 5: Well, it shows me what I think we've all known. He's what's called a useful idiot. I mean, If you actually read translations of what's being said on Russian media, they make fun of him.
Speaker 1: And so while Putin sees no benefit in sitting down for an interview with journalist. He does see benefit from a conversation with Carlson.
Speaker 3: Actually, Tucker, you are not in journalism. A long time ago, sure. But these days, you've been in the propaganda business.
Speaker 6: He is not a journalist. He is not someone
Speaker 2: that you need to take seriously. In fact, he's someone who there would be no reason to take him seriously,
Speaker 6: so he cannot be held liable for the things that he says. So to try to couch what he's doing right now as supposedly being being about journalism is absolutely ridiculous. But Tucker Carlson is going to be there and be the journalist that none of us are.
Speaker 4: And I say, yeah, journalist in quotes. Yes. Am I allowed to say his name?
Speaker 6: Yes. Yes. I'm just
Speaker 4: His name is Tucker Carlson, and he is the only American journalist who has been able to interview Putin since the invasion in 2022.
Speaker 0: Tucker Carlson is not a journalist, not even close.
Speaker 7: Why he's doing this interview now. Obviously, for the Kremlin, it makes sense. If they wanna talk, it's a friendly it's a friendly voice, but we will keep trying our best to actually commit journalism.
Speaker 3: Some of us, Tucker, have already decided. You are literally the worst media figure imaginable to be doing an interview with Russia's Vladimir Putin, you have no journalistic credibility. None.
Speaker 5: I mean, he's like a puppy dog. You know? He somehow has after having been fired from so many outlets in the United States. He, I would not be surprised, if he emerges with a contract with a Russian outlet because he is a useful idiot.
Speaker 8: I think what's really shocking about this
Speaker 4: thing is it
Speaker 8: was the way 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 4: I find it gobsmacking terrifying too, Ali. And it's sort of like we talk about, you know, disinformation on social media. Well, disinformation from people like Tucker Carlson, the platform he has and the fact that, you know, he's a willing participant to it.
Speaker 6: And has been for a while.
Speaker 5: He says things that are not through. He parrots Vladimir Putin's, pack of lies about Ukraine. So I don't See why Putin wouldn't give him an interview because through him, he can, you know, continue to lie about what his, you know, objectives are in Ukraine and and, you know, what he expects to see happen.
Speaker 7: The that that's, you know, that's the sort of nonsense that Carlson is trying to justify this interview.
Speaker 0: Tucker Carlson is lying from the streets of Russia, no less.
Speaker 3: You are the last US media figure any American should trust on anything. Your track record is horrific and And you seem blind to the idea that Vladimir Putin is using you and your followers to promote his propaganda.
Speaker 5: There is A yearning for leaders who can kill and imprison their opponents, destroy the press, lead a life that is one of impunity, unbound by any loss. There's a yearning among certain people in our country for that kind of leadership, and I find that absolutely gobsmacking terrifying.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker asks Putin about jailed WSJ journalist https://t.co/SjPMutFJBP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The interviewer asks if the speaker will release Evan Gershkovitz, a 32-year-old Wall Street Journal reporter who has been in prison for almost a year. The speaker responds that they have already shown goodwill and cannot release him. The interviewer argues that Gershkovitz is not a spy and suggests it may degrade Russia to exchange him for someone else. The speaker counters that Gershkovitz covertly received classified information and is not just a journalist. They do not rule out his return to his home country and agree that keeping him in prison in Russia is senseless. The interviewer expresses hope that Gershkovitz will be released.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just gotta ask you one last question and that's about Evan Gershkovitz who's The Wall Street Journal reporter. He's 32 and he's been in prison for almost a year. And I just wanna ask you directly if as a sign of your decency, you'll be willing to release him to us, and we'll bring him back to the United
Speaker 1: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen
Speaker 0: difference is the guy's obviously not a spy. He's a kid. And maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy and everybody knows that. And he's being held hostage in exchange, which is true. With respect, inspected.
It's true, and everyone knows it's true. So maybe he's in a different category. Maybe it's not fair to ask for, you know, somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.
Speaker 1: He was receiving classified confidential information, and he did it covertly. I
Speaker 0: mean, it's a 32 year old. Like, the owner.
Speaker 1: He committed something different. He's not just a journalist. I reiterate he's a journalist who was secretly Complete getting confidential information. I do not rule out that the person you refer to, mister Gershkovits, may return to his motherland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia.
Speaker 0: I hope you let him out.
@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.
@LarryTaunton - Larry Alex Taunton
It’s rich when actual traitors who have sold out the people of the United States to a globalist — thus, by definition anti-American — agenda are calling #TuckerCarlson… …a traitor. https://t.co/gfbCjT526f
@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.
@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.
@_pblanknews - Point Blank News
Tucker Carlson Takes On Critics of His Interview with Putin | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 210 https://t.co/WfYY3tbIXq
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation explores the complexities of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Russia and Ukraine. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of transparency and accountability in government actions, emphasizing that decisions often benefit a select few rather than the American public. They argue that the U.S. should prioritize its own citizens and interests over foreign conflicts, criticizing NATO's ineffectiveness and the manipulation of public sentiment around race and foreign policy. The speaker also reflects on their experiences interviewing Putin, questioning the motivations behind U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the broader implications for American sovereignty and democracy. They call for a return to a more principled and transparent governance that focuses on the well-being of American citizens.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome. How are you?
Speaker 1: Hey, Len. 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 what did you make of 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? I took a look at the last interview I did with a Western 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. You know?
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 infuriated because they thought he was filibustering. I asked him a 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. Wait.
Speaker 1: On what?
Speaker 0: 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 right? 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: Not 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 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 understand 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 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 too.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: I'm an adult man, 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 I to like anybody.
Speaker 0: Right. 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.
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 to meet the person at 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 kinda trustworthy. So I said, I just wanna get this 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 and 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
Speaker 0: I did.
Speaker 1: Because I grew up on 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 two 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 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 inter 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 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'm never been a I don't 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 gonna convince, in short order, the rest of the world that you can't trust the US dollar because it's gonna 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 bizarre.
Speaker 0: Well, he's okay. But
Speaker 1: 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 or 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 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 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
Speaker 0: I don't even know that.
Speaker 1: Long standing conflicts 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'd 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 nonemotional way. I'm emotional about my country, and I think all Americans most Americans feel the same way I do. 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 a 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 there 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 isn'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 military 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, John Stewart just did a piece. I don't know if you've seen it on you. But yeah. I never watched the movie.
Speaker 1: A lot of stuff.
Speaker 0: 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 I said it in the piece. So Walter Duranty denied the existence. He was a New York Times correspondent in Russia in the thirties. He denied, of course, the the Ukrainian Yep. Famine war.
Which was Stalin. That's exactly right. And he denied the the show trials of 1937, 38, the the the terror Right. 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.
Speaker 0: So but and
Speaker 1: you have to 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 city?
Speaker 0: Why 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 the street and kill them.
Speaker 1: 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 of an orderly society. We had one.
Speaker 0: So
Speaker 1: 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. 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.
Speaker 0: People call
Speaker 1: them broken.
Speaker 0: It's called the Windows
Speaker 1: Theory Yes. 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.
I'm I'm wait.
Speaker 0: 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
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: 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 and look. I'm not flacking for Abu Dhabi. Okay? I'm not about Gaza. But the point is that 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 by big town.
Speaker 0: By far.
Speaker 1: Totally uninhabitable. My family's been there since 1850. Wow. So I do feel like some kind of ownership. I 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 sidewalks 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 Crystal accuses you of not loving America or not, Bill Crystal, 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 You
Speaker 1: should 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?
Of course. Yeah.
Speaker 1: 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 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: Correct.
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. Yes. People are just gonna give up.
They're not gonna vote that used to 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 just 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 deep down inside out to say the communist did it. It's the color revolution, and it's cloured and pivot.
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.
Speaker 0: So let me let me go back to the interview. He the 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 Yeah. 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 over 60 years late.
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, 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.
It happened during occupy Wall Street in 2,012. 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 No.
Yeah. Hasn't worked very well. Most Americans don't wanna do that, and they don't wanna 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 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 Kremlin or something. And I'm thinking, well, that's I mean, his name's not actually Boris as I'm sure you know. His name is Alex Johnson,
Speaker 0: and he
Speaker 1: called himself Boris in high school. So the guy who calls himself Boris is accusing me of that. 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 saying we're 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. And, this just happened yesterday or 2 days ago. And and I'm like, he wants $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 Okay. Which is true.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: 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 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 was 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
Speaker 0: National socialist.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Whatever. But, like, what ideology are you talking about? I just don't even under 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 any press conference that we wanted Ukraine to join NATO. That would be 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, 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 did it? Yeah. I did.
Speaker 0: No. And I can tell you.
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. Sorry. I should never I never admit it. Oh. 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 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. But those are just two facts that I'm not sure the average person in this country had its 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 house or 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. Super scary. But I don't know
Speaker 0: 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 got the office. I understand that. And that was, of course, something that Obama did. And there was And quite a bit of debate with 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'd you'd 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. Snake. 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: I've been an air model for 5 years. They saw my ears and they're immediately like, yes. We can book these
Speaker 0: are oppressing people. We've 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 Yes. 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 it'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 6th 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
Speaker 0: stuff.
Speaker 1: 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 to drive him to rehab because you're sending money to
Speaker 0: The drug company.
Speaker 1: For Quino Plaza 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.
reSee.it AI Summary
I had a challenging and fascinating conversation with @TuckerCarlson about Putin, Navalny, Zelenskyy, CIA, NSA, Moscow trip, Jon Stewart, Trump, Israel-Palestine, China, nuclear war, and more. The full conversation is available on X, YouTube, Spotify, and other platforms. Check the comment for links.
@lexfridman - Lex Fridman
Here's my conversation with @TuckerCarlson about Putin, Navalny, Zelenskyy, CIA, NSA, Moscow trip, Jon Stewart, Trump, Israel-Palestine, China, nuclear war, and much more. This was a challenging and fascinating conversation. It's here on X in full, and is up on YouTube, Spotify, and everywhere else. Links in comment. Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 3:53 - Putin 20:07 - Navalny 41:20 - Moscow 1:00:48 - Freedom of speech 1:07:03 - Jon Stewart 1:19:48 - Ending the War in Ukraine 1:29:15 - Nazis 1:37:42 - Putin's health 1:48:47 - Hitler 1:58:12 - Nuclear war 2:16:31 - Trump 2:33:27 - Israel-Palestine 2:39:37 - Xi Jinping 2:53:34 - Advice for young people 2:58:53 - Hope for the future
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, Tucker Carlson interviews Vladimir Putin, discussing topics such as Russia, Navalny, and the war in Ukraine. Carlson aims to provide honest information and challenge propaganda. He expresses concern about political freedom in Russia and criticizes US government surveillance. The speaker also discusses the importance of focusing on the practical effects of leaders' actions rather than their personalities. They criticize the lack of freedom of speech and press in Russia and Ukraine. The conversation touches on John Stewart, the war in Ukraine, and the mindset of individuals in Washington. The speaker also discusses various topics including aggression, technology's impact on society, and their concerns about rigged elections. They emphasize critical thinking and the pursuit of truth. The video concludes with discussions on censorship, the upcoming US election, and the qualities of a successful leader. The speaker highlights the importance of access to information and expresses concerns about American leadership. They mention their interest in interviewing world leaders and their admiration for Joe Rogan and Sheikh Mohammed of Abu Dhabi. The speaker advocates for ethical use of technology and pro-humanity leadership, emphasizing the importance of truth and love prevailing over tyranny.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He said very specifically, depending on the questions you ask, Putin, you know, you could be arrested or not. And I said, listen to what you're saying. You're saying the US government has, like, control over my questions and they'll arrest me if I ask the wrong question? Like, how are we better than Putin if that's true? Killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60,000,000,000 in Ukraine funding?
Maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn't get that vibe at all. I don't think we kill people in other countries to affect election outcomes. Oh, wait. No.
We do it a lot and have for 80 years.
Speaker 1: The following is a conversation with Tucker Carlson, a highly influential and often controversial political commentator. When he was at Fox, Time Magazine called him the most powerful conservative in America. After Fox, he has continued to host big impactful interviews and shows on x, on the Tucker Carlson podcast, and on tucker carlson.com. I recommend subscribing even if you disagree with his views. It is always good to explore diversity of perspectives.
Most recently, he interviewed the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin. We discussed this, the topic of Russia, Putin, Navalny, and the war in Ukraine at length in this conversation. Please allow me to say a few words about the very fact that I did this interview. I have received a lot of criticism publicly and privately when I announced that I will be talking with Tucker. For people who think I shouldn't do the conversation with Tucker or generally think that there are certain people I should never talk to, I'm sorry, but I disagree.
I will talk to everyone as long as they're willing to talk genuinely in long form for 2, 3, 4 more hours. I will talk to Putin and to Zelensky, to Trump and to Biden, to Tucker and to John Stewart, AOC, Obama, and many more people with very different views on the world. I want to understand people and ideas. That's what long phone conversations are supposed to be all about. Now for people who criticize me for not asking tough questions, I hear you.
But, again, I disagree. I do often ask tough questions, but I try to do it in a way that doesn't shut down the other person, putting them into a defensive state where they give only shallow talking points. Instead, I'm looking always for the expression of genuinely held ideas and the deep roots of those ideas. When done well, this gives us a chance to really hear out the guest and to begin to understand what and how they think. And I trust the intelligence of you, the listener, to make up your own mind, to see through the bullshit to the degree there's bullshit, and to see to the heart of the person.
Sometimes I feel at this, but I'll continue working my ass off to improve. All that said, I find that this no tough questions criticism often happens when the guest is a person the listener simply hates and wants to see them grilled into embarrassment, called a liar, a greedy egomaniac, a killer, maybe even an evil human being, and so on. If you are such a listener, what you want is drama, not wisdom. In this case, this show is not for you. There are many shows you can go to for that, with hosts that are way more charismatic and entertaining than I'll ever be.
If you do stick around, please know, I will work hard to do this well and to keep improving. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for your support. I love you all. This is a Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
And now, dear friends, here's Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 2: What was your first impression when you met, Vladimir Putin for the interview? I thought
Speaker 0: he seemed nervous, and I was very surprised by that. And I thought he seemed like someone who'd overthought it a little bit, who had a plan, and I don't think that's the right way to go into any interview. My strong sense, having done a lot of them for a long time, is that it's better to know what you think, to say, you know, as much as you can honestly so you don't get confused by your own lies, and just to be yourself. And I thought that he went into it, like an overprepared student. And, and I I kept thinking, why is why is he nervous?
But, you know, I guess because he thought a
Speaker 2: lot of people were gonna see it. But he was also probably prepared to, to give you a full
Speaker 1: lesson in history as he did.
Speaker 0: Well, I was totally shocked by that and very annoyed because I thought he was filibustering. I thought he I mean, I asked him, as I usually do, the most obvious dumbest question ever, which is, you know, why'd you do this? And, he had said in a speech that I think is worth reading I don't speak Russian, so I I haven't heard it in the original. But, he had said at the moment of the beginning of the war, he had given this address to Russians in which he explained to the fullest extent we have seen so far why he was doing this. And he said in that speech, I fear that NATO, the West, United States, the Biden administration will preemptively attack us.
And I thought, well, that's interesting. I mean, I I can't evaluate whether that's a fear rooted in reality or or one rooted in paranoia, but I thought, well, that's well, that's an answer right there. And so I alluded to that in my question, and rather than answering it, he went off on this long, from my perspective, kind of tiresome, sort of greatest hits of Russian history. And the implication I thought was, well, Ukraine is ours or Eastern Ukraine is ours already. And I thought he was doing that to avoid answering the question.
So, you know, the last thing you want when you're interviewing someone is to get rolled, And I wanna be rolled, so I, a couple of times, interrupted him politely, I thought, but he wasn't having it. And then I thought, you know what? I'm not here to prove that I'm a great interviewer. It's kind of not about me. I wanna know who this guy is.
I think a Western audience, a global audience has a right to know more about the guy, and so just let him talk. You know? Because it's not you know, I don't feel like my reputation's on the line. People have already drawn conclusions about me, I suppose, to the extent they have. I'm not interested really in those conclusions anyway.
So just let them talk. And so I calmed down and just let him talk. And in retrospect, I thought that was really, really interesting. You know, whether you agree with it or not or whether you think it's relevant to the war in Ukraine or not, that was his answer, and so it's inherently significant.
Speaker 2: Well, you say he was nervous. Were you nervous? Were you afraid?
Speaker 0: This is Vladimir Putin. I wasn't afraid at all, and I wasn't nervous at all.
Speaker 2: Did you drink tea beforehand?
Speaker 0: No. I did my my normal, regimen of nicotine pouches and coffee. No. I'm not a tea drinker. I tried not to eat, you know, all the sweets they put in front of us, which is that that is my weakness is eating crap.
But you eat a lot of sugar before as you know before an interview, and it and it does dull you. So I I successfully resisted that. But I no. I wasn't nervous. I wasn't nervous the whole time I was there.
Why would I be? You know, I'm 54. My kids are grown. I believe in God. You know, I'm not I'm almost never nervous.
But, no. I wasn't nervous. I was just interested. I mean, I couldn't I you know, I'm interested in Soviet history. I studied it in college.
I've read about it my entire life. My dad, you know, worked in the Cold War. It was a constant topic of conversation. And so to be in the Kremlin in a room where Stalin made decisions, either wartime decisions or decisions about murdering his own population, I just I couldn't get over it. You know, we're in Molotov's old office.
So for me, that was I was just blown away by that. I knew I thought I knew a lot about Russia. It turns out I knew a lot about the Soviet period, you know, the 1937 purge trials, the famine in Ukraine. Like, I knew a fair amount about that, but I really knew nothing about contemporary Russia less than I thought I did, it turned out. And, but, yeah, I was just I was just blown away by where we were, and that's kind of one of the main drivers at this stage in my life of it.
You know, that that's why I do what I do is because I'm interested in stuff, and I wanna see as much as I can and try and draw conclusions from it to the extent I can. So I was very much caught up in that, but, no, I wasn't nervous. I didn't think he's gonna, like, kill me or something, and I'm not particularly afraid of that anyway. So
Speaker 2: Not afraid of dying?
Speaker 0: Not really. No. I mean, again, it's a tie you know, it's it's an age and stage in life thing. I mean, I've I've 4 children. So there were times when they were little where I was terrified of dying because if I died, it would have huge consequences.
But, no. I mean, at this point, I don't wanna die. I'm really enjoying my life, but I've been with the same girl for 40 years. And I have 4 children who I'm extremely close to. Well, now 5, a daughter-in-law.
And I love them all. I'm really close to them. I told them I love them every day. I I don't I've had a really interesting life.
Speaker 2: What was the goal? Just linger on that. What was the goal for the interview? Like, how were you thinking about it? What would success be like in your head leading into it?
Speaker 0: To bring more information. Just information. Public. Yeah. That's it.
I mean, I have really strong feelings about, what's, you know, happening, not just in Ukraine or Russia, but around the world. I think the world is resetting to the grave disadvantage of the United States. I don't think most Americans are aware of that at all. And, so that's my view, and I've I've stated it many times, because it's sincere. But my goal was to have more information brought to the west so people could make their own decisions about whether this is a good idea.
I mean, I just I guess I reject the whole premise of the war in Ukraine from the American perspective, which is, you know, a tiny group of dumb people in Washington has decided to do this for reasons they won't really explain, and you don't have a role in it at all as an American citizen, as the person who's paying for it, whose children might be drafted to fight it, you know, to shut up and obey. I just I just reject that completely. You know, I'm a I think I guess I'm a child of a different era. I'm a child of participatory democracy to some extent, where your opinion as a citizen is not irrelevant. And, so I I I'm just and I guess the level of lying about it was starting to drive me crazy.
And I've said and I will say again, I am not an expert on the region or really any region other than, say, Western Maine. I just don't, you know, I'm not Russian. And, but it was obvious to me that we were being lied to in ways that were just, it was crazy, the scale of the lies. And I'll just give you one example. The idea that Ukraine would inevitably win this war.
Now victory was never, as it never is, defined precisely. Nothing's ever defined precisely, which is always to tell that there's deception at the heart of the claim. But, Ukraine's on the verge of winning. Well, I don't know. I mean, I'm hardly a tactician or a military expert.
For the 5th time, I'm not an expert on Russia or Ukraine. I just look at Wikipedia. Russia has a 100,000,000 more people than Ukraine, a 100,000,000. It has much deeper industrial capacity, war material capacity than all of NATO combined. For example, Russia is turning out artillery shells, which are significant in a ground war, at a ratio of 7 to 1 compared to all NATO countries combined.
That's all of Europe. Russia is producing 7 times the artillery shells as all of Europe combined? What? That's an amazing fact, and it turns out to be a really significant fact, in fact, the significant fact. But if you ask your average person in this country, even a fairly well informed person of good faith who's just trying to understand what's going on, who's gonna win this war?
Well, Ukraine's gonna win. They're on the right side. And they think that because our media, who who really just do serve the interest of the US government, period, they are state media in that sense, have told them that for over 2 years. And I I I was in Hungary last summer talking to the prime minister, Viktor Orban, who's a, you know, whatever you think of, he's a very smart guy, Very smart guy. Like, smart on a scale that we're not used to, in our leaders.
And I said to him off camera, so is Ukraine gonna win? And he looked at me like I was deranged. Like I was congenitally deficient. Are they gonna win? No.
Of course, they can't win. It's tiny compared to Russia. Russia has a wartime economy. Ukraine doesn't really have an economy. No.
Look at the populations. He was like, looked at me like I was stupid. And I said to him, you know, I think most Americans believe that because NBC News and CNN and all the news channels, all of them tell them that because it's framed exclusively in moral terms and it's Churchill versus Hitler. And, of course, Churchill's gonna prevail in the end. And it's just so dishonest that even it doesn't even matter what I want to happen or what I think ought to happen.
That's a distortion of what is happening. And if I have any job at all, which I sort of don't actually at this point, but if I do have a job, it's to just try to be honest, and that's a lie.
Speaker 2: There is a more nuanced discussion about what winning might look like. You're right. Sure. A nuanced discussion is not being had, but it is possible for Ukraine to, quote, unquote, win with
Speaker 0: the help of United States. I I guess that conversation needs to begin by defining terms, and the key term is when. What does that mean? Peace, a ceasefire, who owns which land Yes. Coming to
Speaker 2: the table with, as you call, the parent in the United States Yes. Putting leverage on the negotiation to make sure there's a fairness. Amen.
Speaker 0: Well, I of course, as a and and I should just restate this. I am, not emotionally involved in this. I'm American in every sense, and my only interest is in America. I'm not leaving ever. And so I'm looking at this purely from our perspective, what's good for us.
But I also as a human being, as a Christian, I mean, I I hate war, and anybody who doesn't hate war, shouldn't have power in my opinion. So I agree with those that definition vehemently. A victory is like not killing an entire generation of your population. It's not being completely destroyed to be eaten up by BlackRock or whatever comes next for them. So, yeah, we were close to that a year and a half ago, and the Biden administration dispatched Boris Johnson, the briefly prime minister of the UK, to stop it and to say to Zelensky, who I feel sorry for, by the way, because he's caught between these forces that are bigger than he is, to say, no.
You cannot come to any terms with Russia. And the result of that has not been a Ukrainian victory. It's just been more dead Ukrainians and a lot of profit for the West. It's it's a moral crime, in my opinion. And I tried to ask Boris Johnson about it because why wouldn't I after he denounced me as a tool of the Kremlin or something.
And, he demanded a $1,000,000 to talk to me. Wow. And this just happened last week. And, and by the way, in writing too, I'm not making this I'm not
Speaker 2: making this For the record, you demanded $1,000,000 from me to talk to me today.
Speaker 3: I did.
Speaker 0: And you paid. No. I'm, of course, kidding. But, and I I said to his guy, I said, I just interviewed Putin, who was widely recognized as a bad guy, and he did it for free. He didn't demand a $1,000,000,000.
He wasn't in this for profit. Like, are you telling me that Boris Johnson is sleazier than Vladimir Putin? And, of course, that is the message. And so I I guess these are really it's not just about Boris Johnson being a sad, you know, rapacious fraud, which he is, obviously, but it's about, like, the future of the west and the future of Ukraine, this country that purportedly we care so much about. All these people are dying and, like, what is the end game?
It's also deranged that I didn't imagine and don't imagine that I could, like, add anything very meaningful to the conversation because I'm not a genius. Okay? But I felt like I could, at the very least, puncture some of the lies, and that's an inherent good.
Speaker 2: Vladimir Putin, after the interview, said that he wasn't fully satisfied because you weren't aggressive enough. You didn't ask sharp enough questions.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh.
Speaker 2: First of all, what do you think about him saying that?
Speaker 0: I don't even understand it. I guess it I I it does seem like the one Putin statement that western media take at face value. Everything else Putin says is a lie except his criticism of me, which is true. But, I mean, I have no idea what he meant by that. I can only tell you what my goal was, as I've suggested, was not to make it about me.
I I watched you know, he hasn't done any any interviews of any kind for years. But the last interview he did with an English speaking reporter, Western media reporter, was like many of the other interviews he'd done with Western media reporters. Mike Wallace's son did an interview with him that was of the same variety, and it was all about him. You know, I'm a good person. You're a bad person.
And I just feel like that's the most tiresome, fruitless kind of interview. It's not about me. I I don't think I'm an especially good person. I've definitely never claimed to be, but people can make their own judgments. And, again, the only judgments that I care about are my wife and children and God.
So I'm just not interested in proving I'm a good person, and I just wanna hear from him. And and I had a lot of I mean, you should see the I I almost never write questions down, but I did in this case because I had months to well, I had 3 years to think about it as I was trying to book the interview, which I did myself. But they were all it was all about internal Russian politics and Navalny, and and I had a lot of, I thought, really good questions. And then at the last second, and you make these decisions, as you know, since you interview people a lot, often you make them on the fly. And I thought, no.
I want to talk about the things that haven't been talked about and that I think matter in a world historic sense. And then number 1 among those, of course, is the war and what it means for the world. And, so I stuck to that. I mean, I could I did ask about Gershkovich, who I felt sorry for, and I wanted Putin to release him to me, and I was offended that he didn't. I thought his rationale was absurd.
We wanna trade him for someone. I said, well, that doesn't that make him a hostage? You know, which, of course, it does. But other than that, I really wanted to keep it to the things that I think matter most. You know, people can judge whether I did a good job or not, but that was my that was that was my decision.
Speaker 2: In the moment, what was your gut? Did you wanna ask some tough questions as follow ups on certain topics? I don't know what
Speaker 0: it would mean to ask a tough question. Clarifying questions, I I suppose they would I guess. I just wanted him to talk. You know, I just wanted to hear his perspective. Again, I've probably asked more asshole questions than, like, any living American.
You know, I'm as as has been noted correctly, I'm a dick by my nature. And, so I don't I I just feel at this stage of my life, I didn't need to prove that I could
Speaker 3: like, Vladimir Putin answered a question.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 0: The bullshit. You know, know, I think if I had been, you know, 34 instead of 54, I definitely would have done that because I would have thought this is really about me, and I need to prove myself also. No. I just there's a war going on that is wrecking the US economy in a way and at a scale people do not understand. The US dollar is going away.
That was, of course, inevitable ultimately because everything dies, including currencies. But that death, that process of death has been accelerated exponentially by the behavior of the Biden administration and the US Congress, particularly the sanctions. And people's don't understand what the ramifications of that are. The ramifications are poverty in the United States. Okay?
So I just I just wanted to get to that, because I'm coming at this from not a global perspective. I'm coming at it from an American perspective.
Speaker 2: So you mentioned Navalny. Mhmm. After you left, Navalny died in prison. Yes. What are your thoughts on just at a high level first about his death?
Speaker 0: It was awful. I mean, imagine dying in prison. You know, I've thought about it a lot. I've known a lot of people in prison a lot, including some very good friends of mine. So I felt instantly sad about it.
From a geopolitical perspective, I don't know any more than that. And I I laugh at and sort of resent, but mostly find amusing the claims by American politicians who really are the dumbest politicians in the world, actually. You know, this happened, and here's what it means. And it's like, actually, as a factual matter, we don't know what happened. We don't know what happened.
We have no freaking idea what happened. We can say, and I did say, and I will say again, I think I don't think you should put opposition figures in prison. I really don't. I don't, period. It happens a lot around the world, happens in this country as you know, and I'm against all of it.
But do we know how we died? Short answer, no. We don't. Now if I had to guess, I would say killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60,000,000,000 in Ukraine funding, Maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn't get that vibe at all.
You know, I just don't I don't see it, but maybe, you know, maybe they killed him. I mean, they certainly put him in prison, which I'm against. But here's what I do know is that we don't know. And so when Chuck Schumer stands up and Joe Biden reads some card in front of him with lines about Navalny, it's like, I'm allowed to laugh at that because it's absurd. You don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a lot of interesting ideas about if he was killed, who killed him? Yeah. Because it could be Putin. It could be somebody in Russia who's not Putin. Yep.
It could be Ukrainians because it would benefit the war.
Speaker 0: They killed Dugan's daughter in Moscow. So, yeah, that's possible.
Speaker 2: And it could be I mean, the United States could also be involved.
Speaker 0: I don't think we kill people in other countries to affect election outcomes. Oh, wait. No. We do it a lot and have for 80 years, and it's shameful. I can say that as an American because it's my money in my name.
Yeah. I'm really offended by that, and I never thought that was true, and I spent again, I'm much older than you, and so I spent my my my worldview was defined by the Cold War and very much in the house I lived in in Georgetown, Washington DC. You know, that's what we talked about. And, yeah, and the left at the time, you know, I don't know, the wacko MIT professor who I never had any respect for, who I know you've interviewed, etcetera. Like, the hard left was always saying, well, the United States government is interfering in other elections, and I just dismissed that completely out of hand, as stupid and actually a slander against my country.
But it turned out to all be true or or substantially true anyway. And that's been a real shock for me in middle age to to understand that. But anyway, as to Navalny, look, I don't know. But we should always proceed on the basis of what we do know, which is to say on the basis of truth, knowable truth. And if you have an entire policy making apparatus that is making the biggest decisions on the face of the planet, on the basis of things that are bullshit or lies, you're gonna get bad outcomes every time, every time.
And that's that's why we are where we are.
Speaker 2: Does it bother you that basically the most famous opposition figure in Russia is sitting in prison?
Speaker 0: Of course, it does. Of course, it bothers me. I mean, it bothered me when I got there. It bothers me now. I was sad when he died.
Yeah. I mean, that's one of the measures of it's one of the basic measures of political freedom. Are you imprisoning people who oppose you? You know, are you imprisoning people who pose a physical risk to you? I mean, there's some subjective decision making involved in these things.
However, big picture, yeah. Do you have opposition leaders in jail? It's not a free it's not a politically free society, and Russia isn't, obviously. And as I said, a friend of mine from childhood, an American actually, is a wonderful person, lives in Russia with his Russian Moscow with his Russian wife, and I had dinner with him. He's a very balanced guy, totally nonpolitical person, and, and speaks Russian and loves his many Russian children and and loves the culture, and there's a lot to love.
The culture that produced Tolstoy. You know, it's not a gas station with nuclear weapons. Sorry. Only an a moron would say that. It's a very deep culture.
I don't fully understand it, of course, but I I admire it. Who wouldn't? But I asked him, like, what's it like living here? And he goes, you know, it's great. Moscow is a great city, indisputably.
He said, you don't wanna get involved in Russian politics. And I said, what? He said, well, you could get hurt. You could wind up like Navalny if you did, but, also, it's just too complicated. You know, the the Russian mind is not is not exactly the same.
It's it's a western it's a European city, but it's not quite European. And, the way they think is very, very complex, very complex. It's just it's too complicated. Just don't get involved. And, I would just say 2 things.
1, I'm not I mean, like, I I don't know. But my strong sense is that Navalny's death, whoever did it, probably didn't have a lot to do with the the coming election in Russia. My sense from talking to Putin and the people around him is they're not really focused on that. Mean, in fact, I asked one of his top advisers when's the election, and she looked at me completely confused. She didn't know the date of the election.
Okay. She's like, March? Okay. And I asked a bunch of other people just in Moscow, who's who's Putin running against? Like, nobody knew.
So it's not a real election, right, in the in the sense that we would recognize at all. Second, I was really struck by so many things in Moscow and really bothered by deeply bothered by a lot of things that I saw there. But one thing I noticed was the total absence of cult of personality propaganda, which I expected to see and have seen around the world. Jordan, for example. I don't know if you've been to Jordan, but go to Jordan.
In every building, there are pictures of the king and his extended family, and and that's a sign of political insecurity. You know, you don't create a cult of personality unless you're personally insecure and also unless you're worried about losing your grip on power. None of that. That's it's interesting, and I expected to see a lot of it, you know, like statues of Putin. No.
There are no statues of anybody other than, like, Christian saints. So that was, like, I'm not quite sure. I'm just reporting what I saw. So, yes, it's not a in a political sense, it's not a free country. It's not a democracy, in the way that we would understand it or want I don't wanna live there.
Okay? Because I like to say what I think. In fact, I make my living doing it. But it's not Stalinist in a recognizable way. And anyone who says it is should go there and tell me how.
Speaker 2: I mean, this question about the freedom of the press is underlying the very fact of the interview you're having with him. Right. So you might not need to ask the Navalny question, but did you feel like are there things I shouldn't say?
Speaker 0: I mean, how honest do you want me to be? I mean it when I say I felt not one twinge of concern for the 8 days that I was there. Maybe I just didn't and I feel like I've got a pretty strong gut sense of things. I rely on it. I make all my decisions based on how I feel, my instincts, and I didn't feel it at all.
My lawyers before I left, and these are people who work for a big law firm. This is not Bob's law firm. This is one of the biggest law firms in the world, said you're gonna get arrested if you do this by the US government on sanctions violations. And I said, well, I you know, I don't I don't recognize the legitimacy of that actually because I'm American, and I've lived through my whole life. And that's so outrageous that I'm happy to face that that risk because I I so reject the premise.
Okay? I'm an American. I should be able to talk to anyone I want to, and I I plan to exercise that freedom, which I think I was born with. I gave them this long, long lecture. They're like, we're just lawyers.
But that was, it was it was a let me put it this way. I don't know how much you dealt with lawyers, but it costs many 1,000 of dollars to get a conclusion like that. Like, they sent a whole bunch of their summer associates or whatever. They sent they put a lot of people on this question, checked a lot of precedent, and I think and they sent me a 10 page memo on it, and their sincere conclusion was, do not do this. And, of course, it made me mad, so I was lecturing on the phone, and I had another call with the head lawyer, and he said, look, A lot will depend on the questions that you ask Putin.
Mhmm. If you're seen as too nice to him, you could get arrested when you come back. And I was like, you're describing a fascist country. Okay? You're saying that the US government will arrest me if I don't ask the questions they want asked.
Is that what you're saying? Well, we just think based on what's happened that that's possible. And so I'm just telling you what happened.
Speaker 2: So you were okay being arrested in Moscow? I didn't think
Speaker 0: I was arrested in I didn't think back in. For a second. I mean, maybe look. I don't speak Russian. I'd never been there before.
Everything about the culture was brand new to me. You know, ignorance does protect you, sort of, when you have no freaking idea what's going on. You're not worried about it. Like, this happened to me many times. There's a principle there that extends throughout life.
So it's completely possible that I was in grave peril and didn't know it. Because, like, how would I know it? You know? I'm like a bumbling English speaker from California. But, I didn't feel it at all.
But the lawyers did. Yeah. I mean, it scared the crap out of people. You're gonna and look. And I you have to pay in cash.
They don't take credit cards because of sanctions, and you have to go through all these hoops, just procedural hoops to go to Russia, which I was willing to do because I wanted to interview Putin because they told me I couldn't. But then there's another fact, which is that I was being surveilled by the US government, intensely surveilled by the US government. And this came out. They admitted it. The NSA admitted it a couple of years ago that they were up in my signal account, and then they leaked it to the New York Times.
They did that again before I left. And I know that because 2 New York Times reporters, one of whom I actually like a lot, said, oh, you're going and called other people. Oh, he's going to interview Putin. I didn't told anybody that. Like, anybody.
Like, my wife, 2 producers. That's it. So they got that from the government. Then I'm over there. And, of course, I wanna see Snowden, who I admire.
And so I have a we have a mutual friend, so I got his text and come on over, and and Snowden does not want publicity at all. And so but I really wanted to have dinner with him. So we had dinner in my hotel room, at the Four Seasons in Moscow. And I said I tried to convince him, you know, I'd love to do an interview, shoot it on my iPhone. You know?
I'd love to take a picture together and put it on the Internet because I just wanna show support because I think he's been railroaded. He'd he had no interest in living in Russia. No intention of being in Russia. The whole thing is alive. But, anyway, whatever.
All this stuff. And he just said, respectfully, I'd rather not anyone know that we met. Great. The only reason I'm telling you this is because and I didn't tell anybody, and I didn't text it to anybody, okay, except him.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Semaphore Semaphore, runs this piece saying report reporting information they got from the US intel agencies leaking against me using my money in my name in a supposedly free country. They run this piece saying I'd met with Snowden, like it was a crime or something. So, again, what my interest is in the United States and preserving freedoms here, the ones that I grew up with. And if you have a media establishment that acts as an auxiliary of or acts as employees of the national security state, you don't have a free country. And that's where we are.
And I'm not guessing because I spent my entire life in that world. 33 years, I worked in big news companies. And so I know how it works. I know the people involved in it. I could name them.
Ben Smith of Semaphore, among many others. And I find that really objectionable, not just on principle either in effect in practice. I don't wanna live in that kind of country, and people are like they externalize all of their anxiety about this, I have noticed. So it's like Russia is not free. Yeah.
I know. You know, neither is, you know, Burkina Faso. Like, most countries aren't free, actually, but we are. We're the United States. We're different.
And that's my concern. Preserving that is my concern. And so they get so exercised about what's happening in other parts of the world, places they've never been, know nothing about. It's almost a way of ignoring what's happening in their own country right around them. I find it so strange and sad and weird.
Speaker 2: So the NSA was tracking you as do you think CIA was? Who's is, people still tracking you?
Speaker 0: Look. One of the things I did before I went, just because of the business I'm in, all of us are in, and just because we live here, you know, we all have theories about secure communications channels. Like, signal is secure, telegraph isn't, or WhatsApp is owned by Mark Zuckerberg. You can't find okay. So I thought, you know, before I go over here, I was getting all this.
We're having all these conversations, my producers and I, about this. And I decide, you know, I'm just gonna I'm just gonna actually find out, like, what's really going on. So I talked to 2 people, who would know. Trust me. And that's I it's all I can say, and I'm I hate to be like, oh, I talk to people who don't by Kent Zubair, but I mean it.
They would know. And both them said exactly the same thing, which is, are you joking? Nothing is secure. Everything is monitored all the time if if state actors were involved. I mean, you can keep the, you know, whatever, the Malaysian mafia from reading your text, probably.
You cannot keep the big intel services from reading your text. It's not possible, any of them, or listening to your calls. So and that was the firm conclusion of people who've been involved in it, you know, for a long time, decades both in both cases. So I just thought, you know what? I don't care.
I don't care. I'm not sending a ton of naked pictures of myself to anybody. Not a ton. Just a little. Not a ton.
I'm 54, dude. Probably not too many. Right. But but you see so I'm like, I'm just so the guys, travel with 3 people I work with, who I love, who I've been around the world with for many years, and I know them really, really well. And they all got, you know, separate phones, and I'm leaving my other phone back in New York or whatever.
And I just decided I don't care, actually. And, yeah, I resent having to no privacy, because privacy is a prerequisite for freedom, But I can't change it, and so I have the same surveilled cell phone. And, you know, I do switch them out because, there it is, because if you have too much spyware on your phone, this is true, it wrecks the battery. And, no, I'm serious. It does.
And we got it was, I don't know, 5 or 6 years ago, we went to North Korea, and, my phone started acting crazy. And so I talked to someone on the National Security Council who's who actually who called me about this, somehow knew that your phone is being surveilled by the South Korean government. I was like, why the I like the South Korean government. Why would they do that? Because they want more information.
They thought I was talking to Trump or whatever. So but I could tell because all of a sudden, the thing would just drain in, like, 45 minutes. So that is that's a downside.
Speaker 2: So you you keep, switching phones, getting new phones for the battery life.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, I try not to do it. You know, I'm kind of flinty Yankee type in some ways, so I don't I don't like to spend $1,000 with a freaking Apple Corporation too often. But, yeah, I do.
Speaker 2: I mean, you say it lightly, but it's really troublesome that you as a journalist would be tracked.
Speaker 0: Well, they leaked it to Semaphore, and they leaked it to the New York Times. Look, it's I would even put up well, there's nothing I can do, so I have to put up with everything. Okay? But I would probably not be actively angry about being surveilled because I'm just so old and I'm I actually do pay my taxes. I'm not sleeping with the makeup artist or whatever, so don't care that much.
The fact that they are leaking against me that the Intel services in the United States are actively engaged in US politics and media, that's so unacceptable. That makes democracy impossible. There's no defense of that. And yet NBC News, Kendalanian, and the rest will defend it. And it's like and and not just on NBC News, by the way, on the supposedly conservative channels too.
They will defend it, and there's no defending that. You can't have democracy if the intel services are tampering in elections and information, period.
Speaker 2: So you had no fear. You know, your lawyer said, be careful which questions you asked. You said, I don't have
Speaker 0: Well, the lawyer said no. He said very specifically, if, you know, depending on the questions you ask Putin, you know, you could be arrested or not. And I said, listen to what you're saying. You're saying the US government has, like, control over my questions and they'll arrest me if I ask the wrong question? Like, how are we better than Putin if that's true?
And, by the way, that's just what the lawyer said, but I I can't overstate one of the biggest law firms in the United States, smart lawyers we've used for years. So I was I was really shocked by it.
Speaker 2: You said leaders kill, leaders lie. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I don't believe in leaders very much. Like, this whole, like, oh, Zelensky is Jesus and Putin is Satan. It's like, no. They're all leaders of countries. Okay?
Like, grow up a little bit, you child. Do you have you ever met a leader? Like, all of the first of all, anyone who seeks power is damaged morally, in my opinion. You shouldn't be seeking power. You can't seek power or wealth for its own sake and remain a decent person.
That's just true. So there aren't any, like, really virtuous billionaires, and there aren't any really virtuous world leaders. You have grades of virtue. Some are better than others for sure. But I mean, in other words, Zelenskyy may be better than Putin.
I'm open to that possibility, but to claim that one is evil and the other is virtuous, it's like you're revealing that you're a child. You don't know anything about how the world actually is or what reality is. Like, it's I it's, it's
Speaker 2: that's quite a realist perspective, but there is a spectrum.
Speaker 0: There's a spectrum. Absolutely. I'm not saying they're all the same. They're not.
Speaker 2: And our task is to figure out where on the spectrum they they lie in the leaders' task is to confuse us and convince us they're one of the good guys. Of course.
Speaker 0: But I actually reject even that formulation. I don't think it's always about the leaders. I mean, of course, the leaders make the difference. A good leader has a healthy country, and a bad leader has a decaying country, which is something
Speaker 2: to think
Speaker 0: about. But it's about the ideas and the policies and the practical effect of things. So we're very much caught up in the personalities of various leaders, not just our political leaders, but our business leaders, our cultural leaders. Are they good people? Do they have the right thoughts?
It's like, no. I asked him much more basic question. What are the fruits of their behavior? And I always make it personal because I think everything is personal. Does his wife respect him?
Do his children respect him? How are they doing? Is the country he runs thriving, or is it falling apart? If your life expectancy is going down, if your suicide rate is going up, if your standard of living is tanking, you're not a good leader. I don't care what you tell me.
I don't care what you claim you represent. I don't care about the ideas or the systems that you say you embody. It's it's it's dogs barking to me. How's your life expectancy? How's your suicide rate?
What's drug use like? Are people having children? Are are people's children more likely to live in a freer, more prosperous society than than you did and their grandparents did? Like, those are the only measures that matter to me. The rest is a lie.
But, anyway, the point is we just get so obsessed with, like, the the theater around people or people, and we miss the bigger things that are happening, and we we allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that what doesn't matter at all matters. That moral victories are all that matters. No. Actually, facts on the ground victories matter more than anything. I mean, you certainly see it.
This could be black lives matter, for example. How many black people did that help? It hurt a lot of black people, but in the end, we should be able to measure it. You know, like, what how many black people have died by gunfire in the 4 years since George Floyd died? Well, the numbers gone way way up, and that was a Black Lives Matter operation, defund the police.
So I think we can say, as a factual matter, database matter, Black Lives Matter didn't help black people. And if it did tell me how, well, these are important moral victories. I'm over that. That's just another lie, you know, long litany of lies. So I try to see the rest of the world that way.
And but more than anything, I try to see world events through the lens of an American because I am one. And what does this mean for us? And it's not even the war. It's the sanctions that will forever change the United States, our standard of living, the way our government operates, that more than any single thing in my lifetime screwed the United States. Levying those sanctions in the way that we did was crazy, and that was that for me, the main takeaway from my 8 days in Moscow was not Putin.
He's a leader with whatever. There are none of them are that different actually in my pretty extensive experience. No. It was Moscow that blew my mind. I was not prepared for that at all, and I thought I knew a lot about Moscow.
My dad worked there on and off in the eighties nineties US government employee, and he was always coming back Moscow. It's a nightmare and all this stuff, no electricity. I got there almost exactly 2 years after sanctions.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Totally cut off from Western Financial Systems kicked out of SWIFT, can't use US dollars, no banking, no credit cards. And that city, it just factually, it's I'm not endorsing the system, not endorsing the whole country. I didn't go to Lake Bacal. You know, I didn't go to Turkmenistan. I just went to Moscow, largest city in Europe, 13,000,000 people.
I drove all around it, and that city is way nicer, outwardly anyway, I don't live there, than any city we have by a lot. And by nicer, let me be specific. No graffiti. No homeless. No people using drugs in the street.
Totally tidy. No garbage on the ground. And no forest of steel and concrete soul destroying buildings, none of the postmodern architecture that oppresses us without without even our knowledge, none of that crap. It's a truly beautiful city, and that's not an endorsement of Putin. And by the way, it didn't make me love Putin.
It made me hate my own leaders because I grew up in a country that had cities kind of like that. There were nice cities, there were safe, and I we don't have that anymore. And how did that happen? Did Putin do that? I don't think Putin did that actually.
I think the people in charge of it, the mayors, the governors, the president, they did that, and they should be held accountable for it.
Speaker 2: So I think cleanliness and architectural design is not the entirety of the metrics that matter when you measure a city. They're the
Speaker 0: main metrics that matter. They're the main metrics that matter. The main metrics that matter are cleanliness, safety, and beauty, in my opinion. And one of the big lies that we are told in our world is that, no, something you can't measure that has no actual effect on your life matters most. Bullshit.
What matters most, to say it again, beauty, safety, cleanliness. Lots of other things matter too. A whole bunch of things matter, but if I were to put them in order, it's not some, like, theoretical well, I don't know if you know that the Duma has no power. Okay. I get that.
Freedom of speech matters enormously to me. They have less freedom of speech in Russia than we do in the United States. We are superior to them in that way. But you can't tell me that living in a city where, you know, your 6 year old daughter can walk to the bus stop and ride on a clean bus or ride in a beautiful subway car that's on time and not get assaulted, that doesn't matter. No.
That matters almost more than anything, actually. And we can have both, and, like, the normal regime defenders and morons, John Stewart or whatever he's calling himself, They're like, woah. That's the price of freedom. Like, people shitting on the sidewalk is the price of freedom. It's like, you can't fool me because I've lived here for 54 years.
I know that it's not the price of freedom because I lived in a country that was both free and clean and orderly. So that's not a trade off I think I have to make. You can't that is the beauty of being a little bit older because you're like, no. I remember that actually. It wasn't what you're saying.
We didn't have racial segregation in 1985. It was a really nice country that kind of respected itself. I was here, and I think with younger people, you can tell them that. They're like, oh, 1980 5, you were, you know, selling slaves in Madison Square Garden. It's like, no.
You they weren't. You're going to Madison Square Garden and not stepping over a single Fentanyl addict.
Speaker 2: It is true. There doesn't have to be a trade off between cleanliness and freedom of speech. But it is also true that in dictatorships, cleanliness is and architectural design is easier to achieve and perfect and often is done so so you can show off, look how great our cities are, while you're suppressing Of course.
Speaker 0: Of course. I agree with that vehemently. This is not a defense of the Russian system at all. And if I felt that way, I would not only move there, but I would announce I was moving there. I'm not ashamed of my views.
I never have been. And for all the people who are trying to impute secret motives to my words, I'm like the one person in America you don't need to do that with. If you think I'm a racist, ask me, and I'll tell you. Are you a racist? Of course.
No. I have a sexist, though.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay.
Speaker 0: Anyway no. But if I was, like, a defender of Vladimir Putin, I would just say I'm defending Vladimir Putin now. I'm not. I am attacking our leaders, and I'm grieving over the low expectations of our people. You don't need to put up with this.
You don't need to put up with foreign invaders stealing from you. You know, occupying your kid's school, your kids can't get an education because people from foreign countries broke our laws and showed up here, and they've taken over the school. That it's that's not a feature of freedom, actually. That's the opposite. That's what enslavement looks like.
And so I'm just saying, raise your expectations a little bit. You can have a clean, functional, safe country. Crime is totally optional. Crime is something our leaders decide to have or not have. It's not something just appears organically.
I wrote a book about crime 30 years ago. I I thought a lot about this. You have as much crime as you put up with, period. And it doesn't make you less free to not tolerate murder. In fact, it makes you unfree to have a lot of murders.
And so I just but it makes me sad that people like, well, you know, I guess this is I I can't, like, live in New York City anymore because of inflation and filth and illegal aliens and people shooting each other, but, you know, I'm just I'm glad because this is vibrant and strong and free. It's like, that's not freedom actually at all.
Speaker 2: Your point is well taken. You can have both. But do you regret
Speaker 0: We had both. That's the point. We had, but I saw it.
Speaker 2: Do you regret to a degree using the Moscow subway and the grocery store as a mechanism by which to make that point?
Speaker 0: No. I mean, I thought I I mean, look. I'm one of the more unself aware people you will ever interview. So to ask me, you know, how will this be perceived? Yeah.
I literally have no idea and kind of limited interest. But, I I was so shocked by it. I was so shocked by it. And and there were 2 and to the extent I regret anything and am to blame for anything, it would be not and I've done this a lot. Not giving it context, not fully explaining why are we doing this.
Mhmm. The grocery store, I was shocked by the prices. And, yes, I'm familiar with exchange rates, but very familiar with exchange rates. But those don't and I adjusted them for exchange rates. And this is 2 years into sanctions, total isolation from the West.
So I would expect in fact, I did expect until I got there that their supply chains would be crushed. How do you get good stuff if you don't have access to Western markets? And I didn't fully get the answer because I was occupied doing other things when I was there, but somehow they have. And that's the point. And they haven't had the supply chains prop problems that I predicted.
In other words, sanctions haven't made the country noticeably worse. Okay. So, again, this is commentary in the United States and our policymakers. Why are we doing this? It's forcing the rest of the world into a block against us called BRICS.
They're getting off the US dollar. That will mean a lot of dollars are gonna come back here and destroy our economy and imposters this country. So the consequences, the stakes were really high. They're huge, and we're not even hurting Russia. So, like, what the hell are we doing?
1, on the subway, that subway was built by Joseph Stalin right before the 2nd World War. I'm not endorsing Stalin. I obviously, Stalin is Stalin is a thing that I hate, and I don't want to come to my country. I'm making the obvious point that for over 80 years, you've had these frescoes and chandeliers. Maybe they've been redone or whatever, but, like, somehow the society has been able to not destroy what its ancestors built, the things that are worth having, and there are a lot.
And that, like, why don't we have that? And e even on a much more terrestrial plane, like, why can't I have a subway station like that? Why can't my children who live in New York City ride the subway? A lot of people I know who live in New York City are afraid to ride the subway. Young women, especially.
That's freedom? No. Again, it's slavery. And how can if Putin can do this, why can't we? Like, what?
It's not in other words, I mean, this is, like, so obvious. I'm a traitor? Okay. So if I'm calling for American citizens to demand more from their government and higher standards for their own society. And remember that just 30 years ago, we had a much different and much happier and cleaner and healthier society, where everyone wasn't fat with diabetes at 40 from poisoned food.
Like, how is the I'm not a traitor to my country. I'm a defender of my country. By the way, the people calling me a traitor, they're all, like, you know, whatever. They're not I I would not say they're people who put America's interest first. But Just put it mildly.
Speaker 2: There's many elements. Like you said, you don't like Stalinism. You know, you're a student of history. Central planning is good at building subways in a way that's really nice. The thing that accounts for New York subways by the way, there's a lot of really positive things about New York subways, not cleanliness, but the efficiency, like the accessibility of how how wide it spreads.
Like, that now the New York network is incredible. It is. But Moscow, for different in different under different metrics, results of a capitalist system. And you actually said that you don't think US is quite a capitalist system, which is an interesting question in itself.
Speaker 0: We have more central planning here than they do in Russia.
Speaker 2: No. That's not true. Of course, it is.
Speaker 0: You think that's true? The climate agenda? Of course. They're telling the US government has, in league with a couple of big companies, decided to change the way we produce and consume energy. There's no popular outcry for that.
There's never been any mass movement of Americans who's like, oh, I just I hate my gasoline powered engine. No more diesel. That has been central planning. That is central planning. And you see it up and down our economy.
There's no free market in the United States. You get crossways with the government. You're done. If you're at scale, I mean, maybe if you got a barber shop or a liquor store or something, but even then, you're regulated by politicians. And so, no, we I actually am for free markets.
I hate monopolies. Our economy is dominated by monopolies. Completely dominated in What do you mean? Google. What percentage of search does Google have?
90? Google's a monopoly by any definition, and Google is just rich enough to continue doing whatever it wants in violation of US law. So there's no monopoly in Russia as big as Google. I'm not, again, defending the Russian system. I'm calling for a return to our old system, which was sensible and moderate and put the needs of Americans at least somewhere in the top 10.
Somewhere in the top 10. I'm not saying that Standard Oil was, like, interested in the welfare of average Americans, but I am saying that there was a constituency in our political system in the congress, for example, different presidential candidates. Like, no. Wait a second. What is this doing to people?
Is it good for people or not? There's not even a conversation about that. It's like, shut up and submit to AI. And no offense. And so I'm just Offense taken.
Speaker 2: I'm just I'll I'll write we will get you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We're strong. I have no
Speaker 2: doubt. You'll be the first one to know.
Speaker 0: A white man. I just won't even exist anymore. So
Speaker 2: So much to say on that one.
Speaker 0: I bet when you Google my picture Mhmm. 20 years from now, it'll be a black chick. A 100%.
Speaker 2: Well, I hope she's, attractive.
Speaker 0: I hope so too. It'd probably be an upgrade.
Speaker 2: So well, the the central planning point is really interesting, but I I just don't I I don't know where you're coming from. There's a capitalist system I mean, the United States is one of the most successful capital system in the history of of Earth. So to say the most successful?
Speaker 0: I'm just saying that I think it's changed a lot in the last 15 years, and that we need to update our assumptions about what we're seeing.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 0: And that's that's true up and down. That's true with everything. It's true with your neighbor's children who you haven't seen in 3 years, and they come home from Wesleyan and you're like, oh, you've grown. That is true for the world around us as well. And most of our assumptions about immigration, about our economy, about our tax system are completely outdated if you compare them to the current reality.
And so I'm just for updating my files, and I have a big advantage over you because I am middle aged. And so I don't You've called yourself old so many times throughout the talk. Trust my perceptions of things, so I'm constantly trying to be like, is that true? Yeah. I should go there.
You know? I should see it, and I guess just in the end, I trust I trust direct perceptions. Like, I don't trust the Internet, actually. Wikipedia is a joke. Wikipedia could not be more dishonest.
It's certainly in the political categories or things that I know a lot about. Occasionally, I read an entry written about something that I saw or know the people involved. I'm like, well, that's a complete liar. You left out the most important fact. And it's like, it's not a reliable guide to reality or history.
And that will accelerate with AI where history, our perception of the past is completely controlled, and distorted. So I think just getting out there and seeing stuff and seeing that Moscow was not what I thought it would be, which was a smoldering ruin, You know, rats in a garbage dump. It was nicer than New York. What the hell?
Speaker 2: Direct data is good, but it's challenging.
Speaker 1: For example, if you talk to a lot
Speaker 2: of people in Moscow or in Russia and you ask them, is there censorship? They will usually say, yes. There is.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Of course, there is. Well, I agree. I mean, just to be clear, I'm not I have no plans to move to Russia. I think I would probably be arrested if I moved to Russia.
Ed Snowden, who is, you know, the most famous sort of openness transparency advocate in the world, I would say, along with Assange, doesn't wanna live in Russia. He's had problems with the Putin government. He's attacked Putin. They don't like it. I mean, I get it.
I get it. I'm just saying, what are the lessons for us? And the main lesson is we are being lied to, like, in a way that's bewildering and very upsetting. I was mad about it all 8 days I was there because I feel like I'm better informed than most people because it's my job to be informed, and I'm skeptical of everything. And yet, I was completely hoodwinked by it.
I I would just recommend to everyone watching this, like, you think, you know, like, if you're really interested, if you're one of those people, and I'm not one, but it was, like, waking up every day and you've got a Ukrainian flag on your mailbox or whatever, your Ukrainian lapel pin or like, absurd theater. But if you, like, sincerely care about Ukraine or Russia or whatever, why don't you just hop on a plane for $800 and go see it? Okay? No. That doesn't occur to anyone to do that.
And I know it it's time consuming and kind of expensive, sort of, not really, But you benefit so much. I mean, I could bore you for, like, 8 hours. And I know you've had this experience where you think you know what something is or you think you know who someone is, and then you have direct experience of that place or person and you realize all your preconceptions were totally wrong. They were controlled by somebody else. Like, you know, for in fact, I won't portray confidences, but off the air, we're talking about somebody and you said I couldn't believe the person was not at all like what I thought.
Mhmm. Well, that's happened to me
Speaker 2: In the positive direction.
Speaker 0: In the positive direction. By the way, for me, it's almost always in that direction. Most people I meet, and I've had the great privilege of meeting a lot, you know, a lot of people over all this time, They're way better than you think, or they're more complicated or or whatever. But the point is a direct experience unmediated by liars, there's no substitute for that.
Speaker 2: Well, on that point, direct experience in Ukraine. So I visited Ukraine and witnessed a lot of the same things you witnessed in Moscow. So first of all, beautiful architecture. Yes. And this is a country that's really in war.
So it's not Oh, for real? Like, for real where most of the men are either volunteering or fighting in the war, and there's actual tanks in the streets that are going into your major city of Kyiv, and still the supply chains are working. Yes. It's a handful of months after the start of the war. Everything is working.
The restaurants are amazing. The most of the people are able to do some kind of job. Like, the like, the life goes on. Cleanliness, like you mentioned.
Speaker 0: I love that.
Speaker 2: Like, it's incredible. Like, there's the crime went to 0. They they gave out guns to everybody, the the the Texas strategy. It does work. Yeah.
When you witness it, you realize, okay. There's something to these people. There's something to this country that they're not as corrupt as you might hear. Right. You hear that Russia is corrupt.
Ukraine is corrupt. You're you assume it's just all gonna go to shit.
Speaker 0: Well, so that's been and I haven't been to Ukraine, and I've certainly tried, and they put me on some kill him immediately list, so I can't. I've tried to interview Zelensky. He keeps denouncing me. I just want an interview with him. He won't.
Yeah. Unfortunately, I would love to do it. I hope you do. I hope I do too. But one of the, things that bothers me most, I'd love to hear that what you just said about Kyiv and, but I'm not really surprised.
One of the things that I'm most ashamed of is the bigotry that I felt towards Slavic people, also toward Muslims, I'll just be totally honest, because I lived through decades of propaganda from NBC News and CNN where I worked, you know, about this or that group of people, and they're horrible or whatever. And then you whine, and I kind of believed it. And I see it now. Like, we can't even put the word Russia at Wimbledon because it's so offensive. What does the tennis player have to do with it?
Did he invade Ukraine? I don't think he did. You know, stealing all these business guys' yachts and denouncing those oligarchs. Like, what do they have to do with it? You know, whatever.
Here's my point. The idea that, like, a whole group of people is just evil because of their blood, I just don't believe that. I think it's immoral to think that, and I can just tell you my own experience after 8 days there. I think it's a really interesting culture, Slavic culture, which is shared, by the way, by Russia and Ukraine. Of course, they're they're first cousins at the most distant, and, I I found them really smart and interesting and informed.
I didn't understand a lot of what they're saying. I don't understand the way their minds work because I'm American, but it wasn't a thin culture. It's a thick culture. You know? And I admire that.
And I wish I could go to Ukraine. I would go tomorrow.
Speaker 2: So I think after you did the interview with Putin, you put a clip, I think, on TCN where, like, your sort of analysis afterwards.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It wasn't much of an analysis.
Speaker 2: No. But what stood out to me is you were kinda talking shit about Putin a little bit. Like, you were criticizing him.
Speaker 0: Why wouldn't I?
Speaker 2: It spoke to the thing that you mentioned, which is you won't you weren't, afraid. Now the question I wanna ask is it'd be pretty badass if you went to the supermarket and made the point you are making, but also criticize Putin. Right? Criticize that there is a lack of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And In the supermarket?
Yes.
Speaker 0: Oh oh, you mean if I also said that well, yeah. I mean, I of course, I think that. I'm not so I guess part of it is that I'm a little because I have such a low opinion of the commentariat in the United States and the and the news organizations, which really do just work for the US government. I mean, I really see them as I did Izvestia and Pravda in the eighties. Like, they're just organs of the government, and I think they're contemptible.
I think the people who work there are contemptible, and I say that as someone who knows them really well personally. I think they're disgusting. That I I'm a little bit cut off kind of from what people are saying about me because I'm not interested. But, so I try not to be defensive. Like, see, I'm not a tool of Putin.
But the idea that I'd be flacking for Putin when, you know, my relatives fought in the revolutionary war, like, I'm as American as you could be, It's, like, crazy to me, and Applebaum calls me a traitor to my okay. Right. It's just, like, so dumb. I but, no. Of course, they don't have no country has freedom of speech other than us.
Canada doesn't have it. Great Britain definitely doesn't have it. France, Netherlands, these are countries I spend a lot of time in, and Russia certainly doesn't have it. So that's why I don't live there. I'm just saying our sanctions don't work.
That's all I was saying, and we don't have to live like animals. We can live with dignity. Even the Russians can do it. That's kind of what I was saying. Even the Russians under Vladimir freaking Putin can live like this.
And, no, it's not a feature of dictatorship. That's the most, I think, discouraging and most dishonest line by people like John Stewart, who really are trying to prepare the population for accepting a lot less. He is really a tool of the regime in a sinister way, always has been. Like, how dare you expect that? What are you, a Stalinist?
It's like, no. I'm an American. I'm like a decent person. I just wanna be able to walk to the grocery store without being murdered. Is that too much to shut up that you don't believe in freedom.
It's really dark if you think about it. You know?
Speaker 2: So there is a fundamental way which you wanted Americans to expect more.
Speaker 0: You don't have to live like this. We don't have to live like this. You don't have to accept it. You don't. And everyone's afraid in this country they're gonna be shut down by the tech oligarchs or have the FBI show up at their houses or go to jail, and people are legit afraid of that in the United States.
And my feeling is, so? Like, show a little courage. Like, what is it worth to you for your grandchildren to live in a free prosperous country? It should be worth more than your comfort. That's how I feel.
Speaker 2: We should make clear that, you know, by many measures, you look at the World Press Freedom Index. You're right. US is not at the top. Norway Norway is. US is scores 71.
Same as It's Gambia Really? West Africa.
Speaker 0: Let me just ask
Speaker 2: Hold hold on hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
Speaker 0: Now you're raking me laugh.
Speaker 2: Ukraine is 61, and Russia is 35. The lower it is, the worse. Close to China at 23 and North Korea at the very bottom, 22.
Speaker 0: Ukraine put Gonzalo Lira in jail till he died for criticizing the government? How can they have a high press?
Speaker 2: Yes. That's why they're 61.
Speaker 0: But I'm saying I
Speaker 4: don't know.
Speaker 0: Because they're I don't know what the criteria are they're using to arrive at that. But I know press freedom when I see it. I try to practice it, which is saying what you think is true, correcting yourself when you've been shown to be wrong, as I have many times, being as honest as you can be all the time, and not being afraid. And those are wholly absent in my country, wholly absent. People are afraid in the news business.
I would know since I spent my life working there, and they're afraid to tell the truth. They're under an enormous amount of pressure, and a lot of them have little kids in mortgages. I've been there. So I have sympathy, but they go along with things. Like, you would you are not allowed.
If you stand up at any cable channel, any cable channel in the United States and say, wait a second. How did the Ukrainian government throw a US citizen in the prison until he died for criticizing the Ukrainian government, and we're paying for that. That's what's that's why it's offensive to me. We're paying for it. That happens all the time around the world, of course.
But this is a US citizen, and we're paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats. Like, we we are the Ukrainian government at this point. And, like, if you said that on TV, on any channel, well, you you know, you'd lose your job for that. So, like, that's not I don't care. Norway is at the top, really.
Norway. If I went to Nor Norwegian television and said NATO blew up Nord Stream, which it did. NATO blew up Nord Stream. The United States government, with the help of other governments, blew up, committed the largest act of industrial terrorism in history, and, by the way, the largest environmental crime, the largest emission of CO 2, methane. Could I keep my job now?
So how is that a food crisis?
Speaker 2: Know that. I mean, the whole point of
Speaker 0: In Norway? Yes. Well, as the Scandinavian, I can tell you, they would not put up with that. Norway for a second.
Speaker 2: It's been a while.
Speaker 0: Deviating for the majority? No.
Speaker 2: Well but in it's deviating maybe is, frowned upon, but
Speaker 0: Frowned upon. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But do you have the freedom to say it if you do deviate? That's the question.
Speaker 0: Can you keep your job? That's one measurement of it. Yeah. Yeah. It's not the only measurement.
Obviously, being thrown into prison is much worse than losing a job. I've been fired a number of times for saying what I think, by the way, and it's fine. I've enjoyed it. I don't mind being fired. It's I've always become a better person after it happened.
But it is one measurement of freedom. If, you know, if you have the theoretical right to do something, but no practical ability to do it, do you have the right to do it? And the answer is not really, actually.
Speaker 2: You mentioned Jon Stewart. The 2 of you have a bit of a history. I don't know if you've seen it, but he kind of grilled your supermarket and Subway videos. Hey. You got a chance to see it?
Speaker 0: I haven't seen it, but someone characterized it to me, which is why I pivoted against it early in our conversation about how the price of freedom is living in filth and chaos.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That was essentially it. So in 2004, that's 20 years ago, Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire, a show he hosted. And that was kind of a memorable moment. Can you, tell the saga of that as you remember it?
Speaker 0: I mean, for me, you know, as I was saying to you before about how it takes a long time to digest and process and understand what happens to you, or at least it does for me. I didn't understand that as a particularly significant moment while it was happening. I just got off on a plane from Hawaii. I mean, I was out of it as usual. And I was very literal as usual.
And so from my perspective, his criticism of me to the extent I remember it was that I was a partisan. Well, he had 2 curse. 1, that Crossfire was stupid, which it certainly was. In fact, I'd already given my notice and I was moving on to another company by that point. Crossfire was was stupid.
Crossfire didn't help. Crossfire framed everything as Republican versus Democrat, whatever. It was not helpful to the public discourse. I couldn't agree more, and that's why I left. So that was part of his critique.
Fair. I'm not sure I would have admitted it at the time because I worked there, and it's sort of hard to admit you're engaged in an enterprise that's, like, fundamentally worthless, which it was. But, but his other point was that I was somehow a partisan or a mindless partisan, which is definitely not true. It is true of him. He is a mindless partisan, but I am not.
And I haven't been for I really haven't been since I got back from Baghdad at the beginning of the Iraq war, and I realized that the Republican party, which I'd voted for, you know, my whole life to that point and had supported in general, I was like pushing this really horrible thing that was gonna hurt the United States, which in time it it really did. The Iraq war really hurt the United States. And I realized that I had been on the wrong side of that. I said so publicly immediately from Baghdad, I said that, to the New York Times, and I really meant it. I mean it now.
And so to call me partisan, you can call me stupid. You can call me wrong. I certainly have been wrong. But partisan, well, I just didn't think it was a meaningful I mean, it's, like, that's just not true. It's the opposite of true.
So I didn't really take it seriously at all. And, I and I never thought much of him, so I was like, whatever. Some buffoon jumping around on my show grandstanding. But I do think it was record. And by the way, that happened right at the moment that YouTube began.
I think that was one of the first big YouTube it was one of the first big YouTube videos. So it it had a virality that, if that's a word, it went everywhere, in a way that didn't used to happen in cable news. I mean, by that point, I had that was 20 years ago as you point out. I've been in cable news for 9 years. So in the before 2004, we would say something on television, and then it would kind of it would be lost.
Like, people could claim they heard it, but you'd have to go to the, I think, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville archives to get it. Suddenly, everything we said would live forever on the Internet, which is good, by the way. It's not bad, but it was a big change for me, and I just couldn't believe how widely that was discussed at the time because I thought he was not a an interesting person. I think he's he's obviously a very unhappy person. I just didn't take him seriously then, and I and I don't know.
But, so anyway, that was it. It was a smaller thing in my life at the time than other people imagine.
Speaker 2: Okay. You said a lot of words that will make it sound like you're a bit bitter even if you're not. So you you said unhappy person.
Speaker 0: Well, I Partisan person. Happy guy. Well, he's definitely partisan for sure.
Speaker 2: Can you elaborate why you think he's
Speaker 0: Well, so I think that and I see this a lot, not only on the left, but people who believe that whatever political debate they're engaged in is the most important debate in the world. And so they bring an emotional intensity to those debates, and they're inevitably disappointed because no no eternal question is solved politically. So they're kind of on the wrong path. Right? And they're doomed to frustration.
If they believe that, and many do, he certainly does, that whatever the issue is is so, you know, Clarence Thomas, stop a supreme court justice. And the implication is, well, if someone else's supreme court justice will live in a fair and happy society, but that's just not it's a false promise. So I think that people who bring that level of intensity to politics are, by definition, bitter, by definition disappointed, bitter in the way the disappointed people are. And that the real questions are like, what happens when you die? And how do the people around you feel about you?
You know, those are those are not the only questions in life, but they're showing the most important ones. And if we're spending a disproportionate amount of time on who gets elected to some office, not that it's irrelevant, it is relevant, but it's not the eternal question. And so I feel like he's not the only kind of bitter, silly person in Washington or in its in its orbit. There are many, and a lot of them are Republicans. So, but I just thought it was ironic.
I mean, everything is ironic to me, but, like, being called a Russia sympathizer by a guy who calls himself Boris, I guess, just made me laugh. No one else has ever laughed at that. Boris Johnson's real name is not Boris, as you know. He calls himself Boris. It's his middle name.
And so, like, if you call yourself Boris, you don't really have standing to attack anyone else as a Russia defender. Right? That's my I think that's funny. No one else, as I noted, does. But, but John Stewart, like, you know, if if he there are a lot of things you could say about me, but he's much more partisan than I am.
So to call me a partisan, it's like, what?
Speaker 2: He would probably say that he's not a partisan, that he's a comedian who's looking for the humor and the absurdity of the system.
Speaker 0: That's a done both sides. He's a dead sear he's a very serious person in this I will say this, and he shares this quality with a lot of comedians. I know a lot of comedians. I know a cross section of people just having done this job for a long time. And, a lot of them are very serious, like, about their views and their they have a lot of emotional intensity.
And he certainly is in that category. He's not that's that's like the silliest thing. Yeah. He's a comedian for sure. He can be very funny for sure.
He has talent. No doubt about it. I've never denied that. But he is a piece motivated by, by his moral views. You know, this is right.
That is wrong. And and I just think that's it's a misapplied passion. But do you
Speaker 2: think I'm just a comedian? Is, I don't
Speaker 0: think any serious person thinks that. I mean, if you're just a comedian, be and and I look. I'm I I'm not trying to claim. I couldn't claim, but I haven't said a lot of dumb things. And one of the dumbest things I ever said was when he was on our set lecturing me.
You know, he's he's a moralizer, which I also just don't really care for as an aesthetic matter. But he, he was lecturing me about something, and I said, I thought you're here to tell jokes, which I shouldn't have said because he wasn't there to tell jokes. He was there to to lecture me, and I should've just engaged it directly rather than trying to diminish him by, like, you're just a little comedian. He doesn't see himself that way. But I would just say this, John Stewart's a defender of power.
Like, John Stewart has never criticized like, what's John Stewart's view on, you know, the aid we sent to Ukraine, the $100,000,000,000 or whatever? Like, what happened to that money? What happened to the weapons that I bought? He doesn't care. He has the exact same priorities as the people permanently in charge in Washington.
So whatever. He does he's not alone in that. So does Mika Brzezinski, and her husband, and all the rest of the cast of dummies. But if you're gonna pretend to be the guy who's giving the finger to entrench power, you should do it once in a while, and he never has. There's not one time when he said something that would be deeply unpopular on Morning Joe.
That's all I'm saying. And so don't call yourself a truth teller. You're you're a court comedian or a a flatterer of power. Okay. That's fine.
There's a role for that, but don't pretend to be something else.
Speaker 2: I'll just be honest that I watched it just recently, that video.
Speaker 0: And I From 20 years ago?
Speaker 2: From 20 years ago, I watched it initially, and I remember very differently. I remembered that Jon Stewart completely destroyed you in that conversation. And I watched it, and you asked a very good question of him, which was and you there was no destruction, first of all. And you asked a very good question of him. Why, when you got a chance to interview John Kerry, did you ask a bunch of softball questions?
Yeah. I thought that was a really fair question, and then his defense was, well, I'm just a comedian.
Speaker 0: So I thought that was disingenuous, and I haven't watched it. I never have watched a clip one time in my life, and, I don't like to watch myself on television. I never have. So that and that's my fault, and I probably should force myself to watch it though. Of course, I never will.
But I, I think the takeaway for me, which was really interesting and life changing was, I agree with your assessment. I'm not just I've lost a lot of debates. I've been humiliated on television. I'm not above that. It certainly happened to me.
It will happen again. But I didn't feel like it was a clear win for him at all. You know, maybe a TKO, but it was not a knockout at all. And And yet it was recorded that way. And I remember thinking, well, that's kinda weird.
That's not what I remember. And then I realized, no. John Stewart was more popular than I was. Therefore, he was recorded as the winner. And that was hard for me to accept because that struck me as unfair.
You should rate any contest on points. Like, here are the rules. We're gonna judge the contest in the basis of those rules. And now, in the end, it's just like the more popular guy wins. Every TV critic like Jon Stewart, everyone hated me, therefore, he won.
And I was like, wow. That I guess, I have to accept that reality. And you do, like, the reality of the sunrise. You just have you know, you're not in charge of it. So that's just what it is.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, it's a bit darker, I think. The reason he's seen as the winner and the reason at the time I saw as the quote, unquote winner is because he was basically shitting on you, like, personal attacks versus engaging ideas. And it was it was funny in a dark way and, like, making fun of the bow tie and all this kind of stuff. So I'm like hair on bow tie. I understand.
Speaker 0: And it was fair
Speaker 4: to call
Speaker 0: me a dick. I remember he called me a dick, and I remember even when he said that, I was like, yeah. I'm definitely a dick. Yeah. And that's not my best quality.
Speaker 2: Trust me. I but, also, to be kinda I thought John Stewart came off as a giant dick at that time, and I'm a big fan of his, And I think he has improved a lot. So That makes it true. We we should also say that, like, people grow. People like Oh,
Speaker 0: I certainly have or change anyway. You hope it's growth. You hope it's not shrinkage. But,
Speaker 2: but it is sold outside.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I
Speaker 0: I mean, look. I I I haven't followed Jon Stewart's, career at all. I don't have a television. Like, I'm pretty cut off from all that stuff. But, so I wouldn't really know.
But the measure to me is, are you taking positions that are unpopular with the most powerful people in the world, and how often are you doing it? It's super simple, not for its own sake. But do you feel free enough to say, you know, to the consensus, I disagree? And if you don't, then you're just another toady. That's my view.
Speaker 2: Well, I think he probably feels free enough to do it, but you're saying he doesn't do it.
Speaker 0: On the big things. Look. The big things this is my estimation of it. Others may disagree. The big things are the economy and war.
Okay? Yeah. The big things government does can be I mean, a lot of things government does. Government does everything at this point. But where we kill people and how and for what purpose and how we organize the economic engine that keeps the country afloat?
Those are the 2 big questions. And I hear almost no debate debate about either one of them in the media. And I and I have dissenting views on both of them. I mean, I'm I'm mad about the tax code, which I think is unfair. I don't think we should be The fact we have a carried interest loophole in the tax code and people are claiming that their income is investment income, and they're paying half the tax rate as someone who just goes to work every day, It discourages work.
It encourages lending at interest, which I think is gross, personally. I'm against it. Sorry. And, and the fact that we're creating chaos around the world, like, is the saddest thing that's happening right now, and nobody feels free to say that. So that's not good.
How do you hope the war in Ukraine ends? With a settlement with a reasonable settlement. And you know what a reasonable settlement is, which is a settlement, you know, where both sides feel like they're giving a little but can live with it. And I I mean, I was really struck in my conversation with Putin by how he basically refused to criticize Joe Biden and to criticize NATO. And it is I will just be honest.
As an American, it would be a little weird to be, like, pissing on Joe Biden with a foreign leader, any foreign leader, even though I don't think Joe Biden is a real person or really president. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous, but still he is the American president technically, and I don't want to beat up on the American president with a foreigner. Just don't. Maybe I'm old fashioned, so that's how I feel. So I didn't push it, but I thought it was really interesting.
And because, of course, Putin knows my views on Joe Biden. He knew I applied to the CIA, so they've done some done some digging on me. And, but he didn't mention it, and he didn't attack NATO. And the reason is, I know for a fact, because he wants a settlement. And he wants a settlement not because Russia is about to collapse despite the lying of our media.
That's just not true, and no one is even saying it anymore because it's so dumb. He wants because it's just it's just bad to have a war, and it changes the world in ways you can't predict people die. Everything about it is sad, and if you can avoid it, you should. So I would like to see a settlement where look, the thing that Russia wants, and I think probably has a right to, is not to have NATO missiles on this border. Like, I don't know why we would do that.
I don't know what we get out of it. I I just don't even understand it. I don't understand the purpose of NATO. I don't think NATO was good for the United States. I think it's an attack on our sovereignty.
I would pull out of NATO immediately if I were the US president because I don't think it helps the US. I know a lot of people are getting their bread buttered by NATO. But I anyway, that's my view as American. As if if I'm a Russian or Ukrainian, let's just let's just be sovereign countries now. We're not run by the US State Department.
We're just our own countries. Like, that's I believe in sovereignty. Okay? So that's my view. And I also wanna say one thing about Zelensky.
I I attacked him before because I was so offended by his cavalier talk about nuclear exchange because would kill my family. So I'm really offended by that. Anyone who talks that way, I'm offended by. But I do feel for Zelensky. I do.
That he didn't he didn't run for president to have this happen. I think Zelensky has been completely misused by the state department, by Torian Nulin, by our secretary of state, by the policymakers in the US who've used Ukraine as a vessel for their ambitions or geopolitical ambitions, but also the many American businesses who've used Ukraine as a way to fleece the American taxpayer and then buy just independent ghouls like Boris Johnson who are hoping to get rich from interviews on it. Like, the whole thing, Zelensky is at the center of this. He's not driving history. NATO and the United States is driving history.
Putin is driving history. There's this guy, Zelensky. So, you know, I I do feel for him, and I think he's in a perilous place.
Speaker 2: Do you think, Zelensky is a hero for staying in Kyiv? Because I do. To me, you can criticize a lot of things. You should call out things that are obviously positive.
Speaker 0: I I just tried to 2nd ago. I don't I don't know, the extent that he is in Kyiv. He seems to be in the United States an awful lot, like, way too much. You can do a satellite interview. You don't have to speak to my congress.
You're not an American. Please leave.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's my opinion. But,
Speaker 2: you got many zingers, Tucker.
Speaker 0: No. No. No. It's just heartfelt. It's bubbling up from the wellspring that never turns off.
But I would say this about Zelensky. Yeah. To the extent he's in Ukraine, good man. George w Bush fled Washington on 911. I lived there with 3 kids, and he ran away to some air force base in South Dakota.
And I thought that was cowardly, and I said so at the time. And I'm man, was I attacked for saying that. And I wrote a column about it in New York Magazine where I then had a column. Hard to believe. And, but I felt that.
I felt that. Like, that's I think the prerequisites of leadership are really basic. The first is caring about the people you lead. That's number 1. You know, deep in the way father cares for his children or an officer cares for his troops, a president should care for his people, and and that leads inexorably to the next requirement, which is bravery, physical courage.
And I believe in that, and I'm not like some tough guy, but I just think it's obvious if you're in charge, you you know I'm at my house, and I feel like someone broke in. I'm not gonna say to my wife, hey, baby. Go go deal with the home invade invasion. I'm a deal with it because I'm dad. Okay?
So if you're the president of a country and your capital city is attacked as ours was at the Pentagon, and you run away? And the Secret Service told me to. Bitch, are you in charge? Like, who's daddy here? The Secret Service?
Do do you know what I mean? I found that totally contemptible, and I said so. And, man, did I get a lecture, not just from Republicans, but from Democrats. Oh, you don't know. Put yourself in that position.
I was like, okay. I don't know what I would do under that kind of stress, enormous stress. I get it. I know one thing I wouldn't do is run away because you can't do that. And if you're not willing to die for your country, then you shouldn't be leading it.
So, yes, to the extent if if Zelensky really is in Ukraine most of the time, amen.
Speaker 2: Well, hold on a second. Let's clarify. It's not about whether he's in Ukraine most of the time or not.
Speaker 0: Well, I thought that was the whole premise of the No. No. No. No.
Speaker 2: At the beginning of the war, when the tank when Kiev when a lot of people thought that the second biggest military in the world is pointing its guns in Kyiv is gonna be taken. And a man, a leader who stays in that city says, fuck it. When everybody around him says flee, says everybody around him believes the city will be taken or at least destroyed, you know, leveled, artillery, bombs, all of this. He chooses to stay. You know a lot of leaders.
How many leaders would choose to stay?
Speaker 0: Well, the leader of Afghanistan, the US backed leader, when the Taliban came, got in a US plane with US dollars and and ran away and and, of course, is living on those dollars now. So, yeah, there's a lot of cowardly behavior good for him. I, I mean, I guess I'm looking at it slightly differently, which is what's the op what's the option? You're the leader of the country. You can't leave.
Like, Stalin never left Moscow. During the war, it was surrounded by the Germans as you know, for a year, and he didn't leave. And when I was in Russia, they're like, Stalin never left. It's like, how is the leader of the country? You can't.
I mean, like, that's just table stakes, of course. I would say, but you raised an interesting by implication question, which is, you know, what about Kyiv? Like, you think the Russians couldn't level Kyiv? Of course. Obviously, they could.
Why haven't they? They could, but they haven't.
Speaker 2: Well, there's there's military answers to that, which is urban warfare is extremely difficult.
Speaker 0: Do you think that Putin wants to take Kyiv?
Speaker 2: No. I do think he expected Zelensky to flee and and somebody else to come into power.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That may be total. I I don't I don't know. I don't think I have no idea what Putin was thinking, when he did that about Zelensky. I didn't ask him.
But it's a mistake to imagine this is a contest between Putin and Zelensky. This is Putin versus the US state department. I mean, Zelensky that and that's why I said I felt sorry for him. I mean, as I said, we're literally paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats. So there is no Ukrainian government independent of the US government.
And, you know, maybe you're for that, maybe you're against it, but you can't endorse that in the same sentence that you use the term democracy because that's not a democracy. Right? Obviously.
Speaker 2: Well, that's why it's interesting that he didn't really bring up NATO extensively.
Speaker 0: He wants a settlement. He wants a settlement, and he doesn't wanna fight with them rhetorically. And he just wants to get this done, and he made a bunch of offers, at the peace deal, and, you know, we wouldn't even know this happened if the Israelis hadn't told us. And I'm so grateful that they did, that Johnson was dispatched by the state department to stop it. And it's like I I mean, I think Boris Johnson is a husk of a man.
But imagine if you're Boris Johnson and you, you know, you spend your whole life with Ukraine flag pin. I'm for Ukraine, and then all those kids died because of what you did. And the lines haven't really moved. It hasn't been a victory for Ukraine. It's not gonna be a victory for Ukraine.
It's like, how do you how do you feel about yourself if you did that? I mean, I've done a lot of shitty things in my life. I feel bad about them, but I've never extended a war for no reason. Like, that's a pretty grave sin in my opinion. You know?
Speaker 2: Yes. That was a failure, but it doesn't mean you can't have a success over and over and over, keep having negotiations between leaders.
Speaker 0: Well, we're not the US government is not allowing negotiations. And so that for me is the most upsetting part. It's like, in the end, what Russia does, I'm not implicated in that. What Ukraine does, I'm not implicated in that. I'm not Russian or Ukraine.
I'm an American who grew up really believing in my country. I'm supporting my country through my tax dollars. And it's like I really care about what the US government does because they're doing it in my name, and I care a lot because I'm American. And we're the impediment to peace, which is another way of saying we're responsible for all these innocent people getting dragooned out of public parks in Kiev and sent to go die. Like, what?
That is not good. I'm ashamed of it.
Speaker 2: What do you think of Putin saying that justification for continuing the war is denazification?
Speaker 0: I thought it was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Speaker 2: I didn't understand what it meant. Denazification? It literally means what it sounds like.
Speaker 0: You know, I yeah. I mean, I have a lot of thoughts on this. I don't I hate that whole conversation because it's it's not real. It's just ad hominem. It's a way of associating someone with an evil regime that doesn't exist anymore.
But in point of fact, Nazism, whatever it was, is inseparable from the German nation. It was a nationalist movement in Germany. There were no other Nazis. Right? There's no book of Nazism.
Like, I wanna be a Nazi. What is it? What does it mean to be a Nazi? There's no idea. There's no mind there's no Mein Kampf is not Das Kapital.
Right? Mein Kampf is, like, to the extent I understand it, it's like he's pissed about the Treaty of Versailles. Whatever. I'm very anti Nazi. I'm merely saying there isn't a Nazi movement in 2024.
It's a way of calling people evil. Okay. Putin doesn't like nationalist Ukrainians. Putin hates nationalism in general, which is interesting. But, of course, he does.
He's got 80 whatever republics, and he's afraid of nationalist movements. He fought a war in Chechnya over this. So I understand it, but I have a different I'm for national and for American nationalism. So, like, I disagree with Putin on that. But calling them Nazis, it's like, I thought it was childish.
Speaker 2: Well, I I do believe that he believes it.
Speaker 0: So that's so inter I agree with that. I was because I was listening to this because in the United States, everyone's always calling everyone else a Nazi. You're a Nazi. Okay. But I was listening to this.
I was like, this is the dumbest sort of not convincing line you could take. And I sat there and listened to him talk about Nazis for, like, 8 minutes, and I'm like, I think he believes this.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I actually you know, having had a bunch of conversations with people who are living in Russia, they they also believe it. Now there's technicalities here, which the word Nazi the World War 2 is deeply in the blood of a lot of Russians in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: I get it. I get it.
Speaker 2: So you're using it as almost a political term. Yes. The way it's used in United States also, like, racism and all this kind of stuff. Since you know you can really touch people if you use the Nazis totally right. But it's also, to me, a really, like, disgusting thing to do.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 2: Because, and also to clarify, there is neo Nazi movements in Ukraine. They're but just just very small. You're saying that there's a distinction between Nazi and Neo Nazi. Sure. But it's a small percentage of the population, a tiny percentage.
They have no power in government. As far I have seen no data to show they have any influence on Zelensky and the Zelensky government at all. So, really, when, Putin says denazification, I think he means nationalist movements.
Speaker 0: I think I think you're right, and I I agree with everything you said. And I do think that the war the second World War occupies a place in Slavic society, Polish society, you know, Central Eastern Europe, that it does not occupy in the United States, and you can just look at the the death totals, you know, tens of 1,000,000 versus less than half a 1,000,000. So it's like this eliminated a lot of the male population of these countries. So, of course, it's it's still resonant in those countries. I get it.
I just I think I've watched I don't think I know. I've watched the miss misuse of words, the weaponization of words for political reasons for so long that I just I just don't like and though I do engage in it sometime, and I'm sorry, I don't like just dismissing people in a word. Oh, he's a Nazi. He's a liberal or whatever. It's like, tell me what you mean.
What don't you like about what they're doing or saying? And and Nazi, especially, it's I don't even know what the
Speaker 2: hell you're talking about. What troubled me about that is because he said that that's the primary objective currently for the war and that because it's, not grounded in reality, it makes it difficult to then negotiate peace. Because, like, what, what does it mean to get rid of the Nazis in Ukraine? So, like, he'll come to the table and say, well, okay. I will agree to do ceasefire once the Nazis are gone.
Okay? So can you list the Nazis?
Speaker 0: Agree. Plus, can you negotiate with the Nazi?
Speaker 2: Right. Exactly. No. I I
Speaker 0: totally agree with you.
Speaker 2: It was very strange, but maybe it's it was perhaps had to do with speaking to his own population, and also probably trying to avoid the use of the word NATO as a justification for the war.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's all I I of course, I I don't know, but I suspect you're right on both counts. But I would say it points to something that I've thought more and more since I did that interview, which was, like, 2 weeks ago, I guess. It would I didn't think he was, like, a as a PR guy, not very good. Like, he's not good at telling his own story.
You know, the story of the current war in Ukraine is the eastward expansion of NATO scaring the shit out of the Russians with NATO expansion, which is totally necessary. It doesn't help the United States. NATO itself doesn't help the United States. And so I'm not pro Russian for saying that. I'm pro American for saying that.
And I think that's a really compelling story because it's true. He did not tell that story. He told some other story that I didn't fully understand. Again, I'm not Russian. He's speaking to multiple audiences around the world.
I'm not sure what he hoped to achieve by that interview. I will never know. But I did think that, like, this guy is not good at telling his story. And I also think, honestly, on the basis of a lot I mean, I know this. Very isolated during COVID.
Very. We keep hearing that he's dying of this or that disease. He's got ALS. I mean, I don't know. I'm not his doctor.
There's a ton of lying about it. I know that. But one thing that's not a lie is that he was cloistered away during COVID, I know this, and only dealing with 2 or 3 people. And that makes you weird. It's so important to deal with a lot of people to have your views challenged.
And you see this with leaders who stay empowered too long. It's been empowered 24 years effectively. You've done it. You know, there have been upsides, I think, for Russia, the Russian economy, less worse than life expectancy, but there are definitely downsides. And one of them is you get weird, and you get autocratic.
The you know, like, this is why we have turmoil. That's very few kings don't get crazy in old age.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And you said some of this also in your whilst in your post Kremlin discussion while you're in Moscow still, which was very impressive to me that you can just openly criticize. This is great. Well, I don't care. I understand this.
I just wish you did some more of that also with the supermarket video and perhaps some more of that with Putin in front of you. But I Putin in
Speaker 0: front of me. I understand.
Speaker 4: Such a good person.
Speaker 2: I I know you see it as virtue signaling.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It is. Have you seen some of the the interview he did with some NBC News trial?
Speaker 2: I understand. So I think you're just so annoyed by how bad journalists are that you just didn't wanna be them. Yeah. That's probably right, actually. Some some great conversations will involve some challenging.
Like, you were confused about denazification. Well, first of
Speaker 0: all, I accept your criticism, and I accept it as true that in some way, I'm probably pivoting against what I dislike. And I have such contempt for American journalists on the basis of so much knowledge that I probably was like, I don't wanna be like that. Fair. That is a kind of defensiveness and dumb. So you're right.
As for the Nazi thing, I was like, I really felt like we were just speaking so far past each other that we would never, like, come to it's like, I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. And I that and especially when I decided or concluded that he really meant it, I was like, that's just too freaking weird to me. It's it's almost like, yeah, I can think of many other examples where you're interviewing someone else. Say something that's like I was interviewing a guy one time, and he started talking about the black Israelites. And we're the real Jews, and I was like, you know and it wasn't on camera, but I was like, I don't that was so it was so far out to me that I was like, we'll never kind of understand, common terms on that.
Speaker 2: So you mentioned there's a bunch of conspiracy theories about, Putin's health. How is he in person? Like, what do you feel like? Do they look healthy?
Speaker 0: You know, I'm not a health person myself. So, I mean, I can easily gain £30 and not know it. So, like, I'm probably not a great person to ask, but, no, he seemed fine. He seemed, he had his arm hooked through a chair. And I heard people say, oh, he's got Parkinson's.
And, Parkinson's can be controlled, I know, for periods with drugs. So it's it's it's hard to assess. I'm just not, one of the tells of Parkinson's is gait, you know, how a person walks, I think. And his walking seemed fine. I walked around with him and talked to him off camera.
His he's had some work done for sure. He's 71 or
Speaker 2: like, visual
Speaker 0: purposes? Yeah. I'm 54. He's, like, almost 20 years older than me. He looked younger than me.
Speaker 2: What was that like, the conversation off camera? Like, you walking around with him? What was, what was the content of the conversation?
Speaker 0: I mean, I can't
Speaker 3: I can't
Speaker 0: you know, I feel bad even with Putin or anybody, like, talking about stuff that is off the record. But I'll just say that, when I said that he didn't wanna fight with NATO or with the US State Department or with Joe Biden because he wants a settlement, that's a very informed purse you know, perspective. He doesn't. You know, say whatever you want about that, believe it or not, but, that is true. So, so he's open for peace?
Speaker 2: Or for peace
Speaker 0: and dictatorship? Russia tried to join NATO in 2,000. That's a that's a fact. Okay? They tried to join NATO.
So just think about this. NATO exists to keep Russia contained.
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: It exists as a bulwark against Russian territorial expansion. And whether or not Russia has any territorial ambitions is another question. Like, why would it? It's the largest land mass in the world, Whatever. But that's why it exists.
So if Russia seeks to join NATO, it is by definition a sign that NATO's job is done here. We can declare victory and go home. The fact that they turned him down is, like, so shocking to me, but it's true. Then he approaches the next president, George w Bush. That was with Bill Clinton at the end of his term in 2000.
He approaches the next president and said, let's in our next missile deal, let's align on this, and we'll designate Iran as our common enemy. Iran, which is now, you know, effectively lead with Russia, thanks to our insane policies. But and and George w Bush, to his credit, is like, well, it seems like kind of an innovative good idea. And Condi Rice, who's like one of the stupidest people ever to hold power in the United States, if I can say, who's like monomaniacally anti Russia first because she had an adviser at Stanford who was or something during the Cold War. No.
We can't do that, and Bush is just weak, and so he agreed. It's like, what? That is crazy. If you're fighting with someone and the person says, you know what? Actually, our interests align, and you've spent 80% of your mental disc space on hating me and opposing me or whatever, but actually we can be on the same team, if you don't at least see that as progress, like, what?
Why would you if if your interest is in helping your country, what would be the what's the counterargument? I don't even understand it, and no one has even addressed any of this. The war of Russian aggression. Yeah. It was a war of Russian aggression for sure.
But how did how did we get there? We got there because Joe Biden and Tony Blinken dispatched Kamala Harris, who does not freelance this stuff, okay, fair
Speaker 2: to say, to
Speaker 0: the Munich Security Conference 2 years ago this month, February 2022, and said in a press conference to Zelensky, poor Zelensky, we want you to join NATO. This was not in a backroom. This was in public at a press conference knowing, because he said it, like, 4000 times, we don't want nuclear weapons from the United States or NATO on our western border. Duh. And days later, he invaded.
So, like, what is that? And if you even I raised that question in my previous job, and I was denounced as, you know, of course, a trader or something. But okay. Great. I'm a trader.
What's the answer? What's the answer? These are not into you know, Troy Nuland, who I know, not dumb, hasn't helped the US in any way, an architect of the Iraq war, architect of this disaster, one of the people who destroyed the US dollar. Okay. Fine.
But she's not stupid. So, like, you're trying to get a war by acting that way. What's the other explanation? By the way, NATO didn't want Ukraine because it didn't meet the criteria. So for admission, so why would you say that?
Because you want a war. That's why. And that war has enriched a lot of people to the tune of 1,000,000,000. So I don't care if I sound like some kind of left wing conspiracy nut, because I'm neither left wing nor a conspiracy nut. Tell me how I'm wrong.
Speaker 2: Who do you think is behind it if you were to analyze, like, zoom out looking at the entirety of human history? The military industrial complex. You said Kamala Harris. Is it individuals? Is it, like, this collective flock that people are just pro war as a collective?
It's the
Speaker 0: hive mind. It's and and I, you know, spent my whole life in DC from 85 to 2020, so 35 years. And, again, I grew up around it in that world. And I do think that conspiracies of course, there are conspiracies. But in general, the hive mind is responsible for the worst decisions.
It's a bunch people with the same views, totally, you know, views that have not been updated in decades. Putin said something that I thought was true absolutely true. I don't know how he would know this, but it is true because I lived among them. So the Soviet Union dissolves in August of 91 on on my honeymoon in Bermuda. I'll never forget it.
And it was a big thing. You know? If you lived in DC I mean, the receptionist in my office in 1991 was getting a master's in Russian from Georgetown. He was gonna be a Sovietologist, and he was among, you know, thousands of people in Washington on that same track. And so the Soviet Union collapses will so does the rationale for, like, you know, a good portion of the US government has been dedicated for over 40 years to opposing this thing that no longer exists.
So there's a lot of forward momentum. There's a huge amount of money. The bulk of the money in the richest country in the world aimed in this direction. It's very hard for people to to readjust, to reassess. And you see this in life all the time.
You know, I I, you know, I love my wife. All of a sudden, she ran off with my best friend. Holy shit. I didn't expect that this morning. Now it's a reality.
Like, how do I deal with that? Well, you know, I I got stage 4 cancer diagnosis. K. And it's it's all bad, but I'm just saying, like, that's the nature of life. Things you did not never thought you'd have to face happen out of nowhere, and you have to adjust your expectations and your goals.
And people have a hard time with that. Very hard time with that. So that's a lot of it. You know, people, if you're Condi rice, sort of, like, highly ambitious midwitt who gets this degree from Stanford, and you read Tolstoy in the original. Sure.
You did. And, and you spent your whole life, like, thinking that Russia is the center of evil in the world. It's kinda hard to be like, well, actually, there's a new threat, and it's coming from farther east. It's primarily an economic threat. And maybe all the threats aren't reduced to tank battles.
That's the other thing, is these people are so inelastic in their thinking, so lacking imagination and flexibility that they can't sort of imagine, like, a new framework. And the new framework is not that you're gonna go to war with China over Formosa, Taiwan. No. The the framework is that all of a sudden, all the infrastructure in Tijuana is gonna be built by China. And, like, that's a different kind of threat, but they can't kind of get there because they're not that impressive.
Speaker 2: So you actually have mentioned this. It's not just the cold war. It's World War 2 that populates most of, their thinking in Washington. You mentioned Churchill, Chamberlain, and, Hitler. And they kind of seeing the World War 2 as the kind of the good war and the successful role the United States played in that war.
They're kind of seeing, that dynamic, that geopolitical dynamic and applying it everywhere else still.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's a template for everything. And I think it's of huge significance to the development of the west, to the civilization we live in now, to world history was a world war. And so I think it's worth knowing a lot about and being honest about and and all the rest, but it's hardly the sum total of human history. It's a it's a snapshot, and and so you keep hearing people refer to not even the war.
No one ever talks about the war. Like, what how how much does Tony Blinken know about the Battle of Stalingrad? Probably 0. Doesn't know anything. Largest battle in human history, but I mean, he knows nothing.
But he knows a lot about the cliches surrounding the 38 to 40 period, 1938 to 1940. And everything is kind of expressed through that that that formula, and and not everything is that formula. That's all I'm saying. And the Republicans have a strange weakness for it, particularly the closeted ones, the weird the weird ones who were, like, have no life other than, like, starting more wars. Everything to them, the most vulnerable, I would say, among them, emotionally, psychologically vulnerable, the Dutch.
They will always say the same thing, and it appeals to Republican voters, unfortunately, that every problem is the result of weakness. Everyone's Chamberlain. Like, Germany never would have gone in to Poland, Czechoslovakia if England had been stronger. That's the argument. Is that true?
I don't I don't know, actually. Maybe. It might be totally true. It might not be true at all. I really don't know.
But not everything is that. That's not always true. If I go up to you in a bar and I say I hate your necktie, I'm being pretty aggressive with you, pretty strong. You might beat the shit out of me, actually, or shoot me if I do that. Like, an aggressive posture doesn't always get you the outcome that you want.
Sometimes it requires a more sophisticated Mediterranean posture. I mean, it kind of depends. It's a time and place thing, And, they don't acknowledge that. It's like everything is this same template, and I just that's not a the road to good decision making at all.
Speaker 2: Since we're on the time period, let me ask you a kinda almost cliche question, but it applies to you Mhmm. Which you've interviewed a lot of world leaders. Yep. If you had the chance to interview Hitler in 39, 40, 41, First of all,
Speaker 0: would you do it, and how would you do it? I assume you would do it given who you are. Man, there would be a massive cost for doing it. It may destroy my life to interview Putin, though I can tell you as as much as I want that I'm not a Putin defender. I only care about the United States.
That's a 100% true. Anyone who knows me will tell you what's true. I keep saying it. It. But history may record me to the extent it records me at all as a tool of Putin, a hater of America, You know?
That seems absurd to me, but absurd things happen. What would I ask Hitler? I don't even know. I I I guess that I'd probably ask him what I asked Putin, which is why I ask everybody. Like, what's your motive?
Why did you do I mean, if he'd already gone into Poland, like, why are you doing that? You know, what's your goal? And then, you know, the question is, is he gonna answer honestly? I don't know. You know, it's you can't you can't make someone answer a question honestly.
You can only sort of shut up while they talk and then let people decide what they think of the answer. Well, just like in the bar fight, there's different ways. There are different ways. That's exactly right. That's exactly man, is that true?
That is absolutely right.
Speaker 2: I mean, your energy with with Putin, for example, was such that it felt like he could trust you. I felt like he could tell you a lot. I think just wanted
Speaker 0: I just wanted to get it on the record. Yeah. That's all I wanted. You know?
Speaker 2: I I think it was extremely like, we have to acknowledge how important that interview was for the record and for opening the door for conversation. Like, opening the door to conversation literally is the path to, like, more conversations and peace peace talks.
Speaker 0: Well, I would flip it around and say anyone who seeks to shut that down by focusing on a supermarket video of 4 minutes versus a 2 hour and 15 minute long interview with a world leader. Anyone who doesn't want more conversation, who wants fewer facts, fewer perspectives is totalitarian. Probably doesn't have good intent. I mean, I I I can honestly say for all my many manifold faults, I've never tried to, like, make people shut up. You know?
I just it's not in me. I don't believe in that.
Speaker 2: So Putin's folks, have shown interest for quite a while to speaking with me. So you've spoken with him. What advice would you give?
Speaker 0: Oh, do it do it immediately. How's your Russian, by the way? Have you kept up with it? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Fluent. So he would most likely be in Russian. Oh. So, like, that that's the other thing is I I do have a question about language barrier. Like, did you feel it was annoying?
Speaker 0: It's horrible. Yeah. It's horrible. I mean, I don't have much of a technique as an interviewer other than listen really carefully. That's that's my only skill.
I don't have the best questions. I certainly don't have the best questions. All I do that I'm proud of and I think works is I just listened super carefully. I never let a word go by that I'm not paying it. It exhausts me actually.
But, you can't do that in a foreign language because there's a delay. Here, I'm just whining, but it's it's real.
Speaker 2: It's not it's not not whining. Like, can you actually describe the technical details of that? Are you hearing concurrently, like, at the same time?
Speaker 0: Yes. But there's a massive lag. So what's happening is so the translator so we were, of course, extremely uptight about the logistical details. So we brought our own cameraman who I've been around the world with, who worked at Fox, came with me now. Amazing.
And he did I mean, it was our cameras, lighting, everything. Like, we had full control of that, and we had control the tape. The Russians also had their own cameras and I don't know what they did with it. But we had full control of that and we brought our own translator. We got our own translator because I just you know, trust anyone.
Right? So, so I think we had a good translator. We had 2 of them actually and but the because they get exhausted. But the problem is, from my perspective, as someone who's, like, trying to think of a follow-up and listen to the answer, Putin will talk and you can in part of your ear hear, you know, the Slavic sounds. And then then over that is a guy with a Slavic accent speaking English.
And then you can hear Putin stop talking, and then this guy's answer goes on from their 15, 20 seconds. So it's super disconcerting, and it's really hard. And the other thing is it doesn't matter how good your translators are. I'm I'm interested in language. I speak only English fluently.
And but I'm really interested in language, and I know, and I work in language. You it doesn't matter how good your translator is. In literature and in conversation, you miss so much if the language is moving for you. I mean, you see this in in bible study. You see it in in Dostoevsky.
You see it everywhere. If you don't speak, you know, Aramaic, Hebrew, Russian, you're not really getting, I mean, even in romance languages. Like, I, you know, I like Balzac. Okay? I like this, obviously, written French.
You read Pere Goryeau, it's amazing novel, hilarious, and it's like you're not really getting it. And it's not that you know, French and English are not that far apart. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: Russian? Like, what? Plus conversation. So the chemistry of conversation, the humor, the wit, the the play with words, all this stuff.
Speaker 0: Exactly. And my understanding of Russian as a lover of Russian literature in English is that it's it's not a simple language at all. The grammar's complex. Mhmm. There's a lot that's expressed that will be lost in the translation.
So, yes, I mean, the fact that you speak native Russian, I mean, I would run that walk to that interview because I think it would just be amazing. You would get so much more out of it than I did. And we should say that you've met a
Speaker 2: lot of world leaders. Both Zelensky and Putin are intelligent, witty, even funny. Yes. So, like, there's a depth to the person that can be explored through a conversation just on that element, the linguistic element.
Speaker 0: Putin speaks decent English. I spoke to him in English, so I know that. But he's not comfortable with it at all. But Zelensky is, I think.
Speaker 2: No. He is well, he's better than Putin in English, but he's still the humor, the like, the intelligence, all of that is not quite there in English. He says simple points, but the guy is a comedian. And he's a comedian primarily in Russian, the Russian language. So the the Ukrainian language is now used mostly, primarily as a kind of symbol
Speaker 0: I I'm aware of that.
Speaker 2: It's a political
Speaker 0: decision. No. I know.
Speaker 2: And he is, you know, his really his native language is Russian language.
Speaker 0: Of course. As a lot of people
Speaker 2: but you you can also understand his position that he might not want to be speaking Russian publicly. That's something I've
Speaker 0: I don't think they're allowed to speak in Russian in some places in Ukraine. Right? That's that's one of the reasons that Russia was so mad is that they were attacking language, and that's a fair complaint. Like, what? And by the way, if you haven't been to Moscow in a while, you should see
Speaker 4: it, and you will pick up
Speaker 0: a million things that were invisible to me. And you should assess it for yourself. And my strong advice would be, even if you don't interview Putin, go over there, spend a week there, and assess what you think. I mean, how restricted does the society feel? I mean, it would take a lot of balls to do this because you I mean, whatever you decide, you will be sucked into conversations that have nothing to do with you, political conversations.
Yeah. You're obviously not a political activist. Right? You're an interviewer, but I think it would be so interesting.
Speaker 2: But for interview itself, is there advice you have about how to carry interview? It is fundamentally different when you do it in the native language.
Speaker 0: But Yes. I mean, I think, you know, I approached the and maybe I did it incorrectly, but this was the product of a lot of thought. I was coming into that interview aware that he hadn't given an interview at all with anybody since the war started. Mhmm. So I had a 1000000 different questions.
And as noted, I didn't ask them because I just wanted to focus on the war. Yeah. But, I mean, there's so many I'll send you my notes that I wrote. I was like a diligent little girl. That would be amazing.
Speaker 2: But I think put
Speaker 0: it by ear. All these questions that some of them I thought were
Speaker 2: were pretty funny. In your in your case, I think, the very fact of the interview was the most important. Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's probably right. I did have the the the question that I really wanted to ask that I was almost gonna ask because it made me laugh out loud. I was sitting, having drinking coffee beforehand with my producers, and I was like, I'm gonna go there. My first question is gonna be, mister president. I've been here in the Kremlin for 2 days preparing, and I haven't seen a single African American in a position of power in the Kremlin.
Sure. But I thought that's too Yeah. Culturally specific and dry, and he'd be like, this guy's freaking crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. You don't wanna open with a crazy No. I know. With a with humor.
I know. Alright.
Speaker 0: That's probably it doesn't translate.
Speaker 2: It doesn't. Oh, yeah. Then there'll be a small delay where you have to wait for the joke Like, what? To see if it lands or not.
Speaker 0: Not America.
Speaker 2: At Fox, you were, for a time, the most popular host. After Fox, you garnered a huge amount of attention as well. Same, probably more. Do you worry that popularity and just that attention gets to your head? Is it kind of drug that clouds your thinking?
Speaker 0: You think? I live in a spiritual graveyard of people killed by the quest for fame. Yes. I have lived in that, I mean, I would say the one advantage. The 2 advantages I have, and 1, I've I've a happy family and a stable family and a stable group of friends, which is just the greatest blessing and, and a and a strong love of nature and that my family shares.
So, you know, I'm in nature every day, and I have a whole series of rituals designed to keep me from becoming the asshole that I could easily become. And, but no. Of course. I mean, that's what I dis you know, that's I and I don't wanna beat up on who grateful to Elon who, you know, gave me a platform, and and I mean that sincerely. But I definitely don't spend a lot of time on social media or on the Internet for that exact reason.
Well, first of all, I think it's, as I've said, a much more controlled environment than we acknowledge, And I don't want lies in my head, but I also don't want to become the sort of person who's seeking the adulation of strangers. I think that's soul poison. And I said earlier that I think that the the desire for power and money will kill you, and I believe that and I've seen it a lot. But I also think the desire for the love of people you don't know is every bit as poisonous, maybe more so. And so yes.
And it's not just because I've, you know, obviously spent most of my life in public. And and in fact, I don't spend my life in public, and I'm completely private person, but, but, professionally, I've spent my life in public. It's not just that. It's like social media makes everybody into a cable news host. We're talking off the air.
My my new I just I'm obsessed with this. I don't know enough about it, but here's what I do know. South Korea, amazing country, great people. I grew up around Koreans, probably no group if I can generalize about a group that I like more than Koreans or just smart, funny, honest, brave. There's I really like Koreans.
I always have. My whole life growing up, it's only California with Koreans. South Korea is, like, dying. It's literally dying. It's way below replacement rate in fertility.
Its suicide rate is astronomical. Why is that? It's a rich country. But, of course, I don't know the answer. But I suspect it has something to do with the penetration of technology into South Korean society.
Is the high I think one of the highest, certainly one of the highest in the world. People live online there. And there was a belief in for a bunch of reasons in South Korea that Western technology would be a liberating progressive force, and I think it's been the opposite. That's my sense, strong sense, and I think it's true in this country too. I don't understand how people can ignore the decline in life expectancy or the rise in fentanyl use.
It's not just about China shipping precursor chemicals to Mexico. It's like, why would you take that shit?
Speaker 2: I hope those two things aren't coupled. Technological advancement and, the erosion.
Speaker 0: Well, let me ask you. And I know you're a technologist, and there's a and I respect it. And there's a lot of technology that I like and have benefited from. I had back surgery, and it worked. Okay?
So I'm not against all technology. But can you name a technology, a big technology in the last 20 years that we can say conclusively has improved people's lives?
Speaker 2: Well, conclusive is a tough thing
Speaker 0: Pretty conclusively.
Speaker 2: I I think that we can brag about. I think well, you've criticized Google search recently, but I think making the world knowledge accessible to anyone, anywhere across the world through Google search.
Speaker 0: Well, I love that. I love that idea. Are people better informed? Are they more superstitious and misled than they were 20 years ago? I I
Speaker 2: I think not close. I well, no. I don't know. I think they are more informed. It's just revealing the ignorance.
The the Internet has revealed the ignorance that people have, but I think the ignorance has been decreasing gradually. And, like, if if you look even you can criticize places like Wikipedia a lot, and many very many aspects of Wikipedia are very biased. But when you most of it are actually topics that don't have any bias in them because they're not political or so on, there's no battle over those topics. Right. And most of Wikipedia I think that's true.
It's like the fastest way to learn about
Speaker 0: a thing. I couldn't agree more. You can very quickly imagine you're an expert, and that may be the problem. I think, no. It's it's true.
I just experienced it in Moscow. It's like again, I feel like I'm in the top 1% for information, certainly intake because it's my job. And I had literally and, plus, I and I'm always out of the country. I've been I've been around the world many times. Like, I feel like I know a lot about the rest of the world or I thought I did.
And how did I not know any of that? And maybe I'm just, like, unusually ignorant or something or reading the wrong things. I don't know what it was, but all I know is the digital information sources that I use to understand just something as simple as what's the city of Moscow like were completely inadequate. And, anyway, look. The I just am worried that we're missing the obvious signs, and the obvious signs are reproduction, life expectancy, sobriety.
If you have a society where people just can't deal with being sober, don't wanna have children, and are dying younger, you have an extremely sick you have a suicidal society. Okay? And I'm not even blaming anyone for I'm just saying objectively that is true. And the measure of a health of your society is the number of children that you have and how well they do. It's super simple.
That's the next generation. We all die. And what replaces us? And if you if you don't care, then you're suicidal and maybe other things too. But, that's all I'm saying.
So what happened in South Korea? Like, why can't anyone answer the question? They're great people. They're rich. They have all these advantages.
They're on the cutting edge of every American. For a foreign country, they're more American than maybe any other country other than Canada. And, like, what happened?
Speaker 2: And, I mean, your fundamental worry is the same kind of thing might be happening or will happen in the United States.
Speaker 0: Well, let me just ask you this. I think North Korea seems like the most dystopian and horrible place in the world. Right? Obviously. It's a byword for dystopia.
Right? North Korean. I use it all the time, and I mean it. If in a 100 years, there are more North Koreans still alive than there are South Koreans, what does that tell us?
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's something to worry about.
Speaker 0: But, also How did it how did it happen? Like, why? I'm interested in the why. This is a question I asked Putin. You know, sometimes we don't know why, but why does no one ask why?
Speaker 2: I've seen a lot of increased distrust in science, which is deserved in many places, it just worries me. Because some of the greatest inventions of humanity come from science and technological innovation.
Speaker 0: Okay. Then let me ask you a couple quick questions and perhaps you have the answer. I've always assumed that was true, and I should say that when I was a kid, I lived in La Jolla, California next to the Salk Institute, named after Jonas Salk, a resident of La Jolla, California Mhmm. Who created the polio vaccine and saved untold 1,000,000. And so my belief, which is still my belief, actually, that's a great thing.
It's one of the great additions to human flourishing ever. But if technology is so great, why is life expectancy going down? And why are fewer people having kids? And why would anybody who has Internet access ever use Fentanyl? What is that?
What is going on? And until we can answer that question, I think we have to assume the question whether technology is in that good or in that bad is an is unresolved, like, at best. Right?
Speaker 2: At best, perhaps. But technology is the very tool that just which will allow us to have that kind of discourse to figure out to do science better.
Speaker 0: I mean, I want that to be true. And when you said that the Internet allows people to escape the darkness of ignorance, man, I that resonate with me because I felt that way in 1993, 4 when it was first starting and I first got on it. And I thought, man, this is amazing. You can talk for free to anyone around the world. This is gonna be great.
But let me just ask you this. This is something I've never gotten over or gotten a straight answer to. Why is it that in any European city, the greatest buildings, indisputably, were built before electricity and the machine age? Why has no one ever built a medieval cathedral in the modern era ever?
Speaker 2: Well, what is that? Indisputably. You're have a presumption we have a good definition of what beauty is. There's a lot of people
Speaker 0: Right. Let's be specific. Pick a European city or any city in the world and tell me that there's a prettier building than, say, Notre Dame before it was set fire to.
Speaker 2: There's other sources of prettiness and beauty.
Speaker 0: There's a purely in architecture. Of of course. Trees are prettier than any building in my opinion. So I agree with that.
Speaker 2: But, also, there could be I I I grew up in the pre Internet age. Good. But if could. But if you grew up in the Internet age, I I think your eyes will be more open to beauty that's digital, that is in a digital
Speaker 0: I'm not discounting the possibility of digital beauty at all. And, you know, the Ted Kaczynski in me wants to, but I that's too close minded. I agree. I'm completely willing to believe there is such a thing as digital beauty. I I mean, I have digital pictures of my phone of my dogs and kids, so I know that there is.
But purely in the realm of architecture because it's, like, limited and and it is, you know, one of the pure expressions of human creativity. We need Mhmm. Places to live and work and worship and eat, and so we build buildings and every civilization has. But the machine age, the industrial age seemed to have decreased the quality and the beauty in our in that one expression of human creativity, architecture. And why is that?
Speaker 2: Well, I could also argue that, you know, I'm a big sucker for bridges. And Yeah. Modern bridges can give older bridges a run for their money. But I
Speaker 0: like bridges too. So I agree with you, sort of. But, like, the Brooklyn Bridge, I don't I don't know that there's any modern bridges. You know, that was built in late 19th century. Yeah.
Very much in the industrial age, but I'm just saying, like, the great cathedrals of Europe. Yeah. Even the pyramids, whoever built them. It doesn't it seems like if you I it's just it's, like, super obvious. I'm just, like, I'm dealing on the autism level here.
Just, like, why is that? But that's a good way to start. If all of a sudden you have electricity and hydraulics, and you have access I mean, I have machines in my woodshop at home that are so much more advanced than anything than any cathedral builder in 15th century Europe had. And yet, there's neither I nor anyone I know could even begin to understand how a flying buttress was built. Right?
And so what is that?
Speaker 2: And the other question is also consider that whatever is creating this technology is unstoppable. Well, there's that. And the question is, like, how do you steer it then? You have to look in a realist way at the world Uh-huh. And say that if you don't, somebody else will.
And you want to do it in a safe way. I mean, this is the Manhattan Project.
Speaker 0: Was the Manhattan Project a good idea to create nuclear weapons? That that's an easy call.
Speaker 2: No. For me, it's an easy call in retrospect in retrospect, yes. Because it seems like it stopped world wars. So the mutually assured destruction seems to have ended wars ended major military wars.
Speaker 0: Well, it's been, what, 80 years, not even 80 years, 79. And so we haven't had a world war in 79 years, but one nuclear exchange would, of course, kill more people than all wars in human history combined. So
Speaker 2: You're saying 79 makes it sound like you're counting.
Speaker 0: I am counting because I think it obviously, it's, like, completely demonic, and everyone pretends like it's great. You know, nuclear weapons are evil.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Of them is evil, and the technology itself is evil. And in my I mean, it's just like, if you can't, that's just so obvious. And that's what what I'm saying is, like, I'm not against all technology. I took a shower this morning.
Speaker 4: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: It was powered by an electric pump Yep. Heated by a water heater. Like, I loved it. I sat in an electric sauna. You know, like, I'm not against all technology, obviously.
But the mindless worship of technology?
Speaker 2: Sure. Mindless worship of anything is pretty bad.
Speaker 0: But I'm just saying so you said let's approach this from a realist perspective. Okay. Let's if we think that there is a reasonable or even a potential chance, it could happen maybe on the margins. Let's assign it a 15% chance that AI, for example, gets away from us. And we are now ruled by machines that may actually hate us.
Who knows what they want? Why wouldn't we use force to stop that from happening? So you're walking down the street in midtown Manhattan. It's midnight. You've had a few drinks.
You're coming from dinner. You're walking back to your apartment. A guy, a very thuggish looking guy, young man Mhmm. Approaches you. He's 50 feet away.
Mhmm. He pulls out a handgun. He lifts it up to you. You also are armed. Do you shoot him, or do you wait to get shot?
Because all the data look. He hasn't shot you. He's not committed a crime other than carrying a weapon in your city. Maybe he's got a license. You don't know.
Mhmm. Could be legal. But he's pointing a gun at you. Is it fair to kill him before he kills you even though you can't prove that he will kill you?
Speaker 2: If if I knew my, my skills with a gun because he already has
Speaker 0: the top But but it turns out that you, you know, you have some confidence in your ability k. K. To stop the threat by force. Are you justified in doing that?
Speaker 2: I just like this picture. Am I wearing a cowboy hat? No. No.
Speaker 0: But you're wearing cowboy boots, and they're clicking on the cobblestones. They're actually running meat packing.
Speaker 2: K. K. Great. I like this picture. I'm just Yeah.
I I think about this a lot, actually. No. Yeah. I I understand your point. But, also, the I just think that metaphor falls apart if, there's, if there's other nations at play here.
So if, the same as with a nuclear bomb, if US doesn't build it, will other nations build it? The Soviet Union build it, China or Nazi Germany? We've faced this.
Speaker 0: I mean, we face this. And the last president to try and keep in a meaningful way nuclear proliferation under control was John f Kennedy. And look what happened to him. But,
Speaker 2: but what what's your suggestion? Like, Like, is it No.
Speaker 0: It wasn't. But hold on. No. Inevitable? Their well, their position in 1962 was, no.
It's absolutely not inevitable. And or perhaps it's inevitable in the sense that our death is inevitable, but, you know, as human beings, but we fight against the dying of the light anyway because that's the right thing to do. No. We were willing to use force to prevent other countries from getting the bomb because we thought that would be really terrible because we acknowledged that while there were upsides to nuclear weapons, just like there are upsides to AI, the downside was terrifying in the hands of I mean, that's the thing that I kind of don't get. It's like the applications of that technology in the hands of people who mean to do harm and destroy.
It's, like, so obviously terrifying.
Speaker 2: It's not so obvious to me. What I'm terrified about is probably similar thing that you're terrified about, is using that technology to manipulate people's minds. That's much more reasonable to me as an expectation. Yeah. A real threat that's possible in the next few years.
Speaker 0: But what matters more than that?
Speaker 2: Well, I think that could lead to, like, destruction of human civilization through other humans, for example, starting nuclear wars.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I mean, this is one of the reasons I wasn't afraid in the Vladimir Putin interview because it's like, it's all ending anyway. You know what I mean? Yeah. Well, might as well dance on the deck of the Titanic.
Speaker 2: Don't be a pussy. Enjoy it. I think, we will forever fight against the dying of the light as the entirety of the civilization.
Speaker 0: The other day said that Biden ascribed that to Churchill. That was a Churchill quote. That's kind of what I'm saying. It's like, if you live in a society where people don't read anymore, like, people are by definition much more ignorant. Mhmm.
And you like, but they don't know it? It's like, I do think the Wikipedia culture and I think there are cool things about Wikipedia certainly is ease of uses. Hi. And that's great. But people get the sense that, like, oh, I know a lot about, you know, this or that or the other thing, and it's like the key to wisdom again, the key to wise decision making is knowing what you don't know, and it's just so important to be reminded of what a dummy you are and how ignorant you are all the time.
Yeah. That's why I like having daughters. It's like it's never far from mind how flawed I am, and that's important.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I the same way I hope to be a dad. Oh, I'm You
Speaker 0: should have a ton of are you gonna have a ton of pups?
Speaker 2: 5 oh, pup? What? You mean, like
Speaker 0: Children?
Speaker 2: Yes. Fives. But, also, I've been thinking of getting a dog. But, unrelated, I would love to have, like, 5 or 6 kids. Yeah.
For sure.
Speaker 0: What have you found a victim yet?
Speaker 1: You make it sound so romantic, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Sure. K. I love it. No. You should totally do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. 100%. But, also, in terms of being humble, you know, I I do jujitsu. It's a martial art where you get your ass kicked all the time.
Speaker 0: I love that.
Speaker 2: It's nice to get your ass physical humbling is unlike anything else, I think, because we're kinda monkeys at heart, and just getting your ass kicked is really helpful.
Speaker 0: I've had it happen to me twice,
Speaker 2: And, twice is enough. It got
Speaker 0: me to quit drinking. You know? I was good at starting fights, not good at winning them. But, no. I completely agree with that.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you. You've been pretty close with Donald Trump. Your private text about him around the 2020 election were made public. In one of them, you said you passionately hate Trump. When that came out, you said that you actually know you love him.
So how do you explain the difference?
Speaker 0: You know, my text reflect a lot of things, including how I feel at the moment that I sent them. That specific text I happen to know since I had to go through it forensically during my deposition in a case I was not named in. I had nothing to do with whatsoever. It's crazy how civil suits can, like, be used to hurt people you disagree with politically. But, I was mad at a very specific purse I mean, really what what that I mean, you're asking me.
I'll tell you exactly what that was. It was the second the election ended and they stopped voting stopped the vote counting on election night. I was like, well, this is and it's all now mail in ballots, electronic voting machines. I was like, that's a rigged election. I thought that then I think it now.
Well, now it's obvious that it was. But at the time, I was like, I feel like there's that was, like, crazy what just happened. I want but I don't wanna go on TV and say that's a rigged election because I don't have any evidence of a rigged election. You can't do that. It's irresponsible, and it's wrong.
So I was like, I want the Trump campaign was making all these claims about, you know, this or that fraud, so I was trying my best to to substantiate them, to follow-up on it. Everyone's like, shut up, Trump. You lost. Go away. We're gonna indict you.
But I felt like my job was to be like, no. The guys he's president. He's claiming the elections got stolen, and he's making these claims. Let's see if we can well, people around him were, like, so incompetent. It was just absolutely crazy.
And I so I'd I'd called a couple of times. I finally gave up, but I'd call and be like, alright. You guys claim that these inconsistencies and this, you know, whatever this happened. Give me evidence, and I'll put it on TV. You know, it's my job to bring stuff that is not gonna be aired anywhere else to the public.
I couldn't I it was, like, it was insane how incompetent and unserious They
Speaker 2: weren't able to provide, like Well,
Speaker 0: here's the here's the point of the story and of that text. So then they come and say, well, dead people voted. Well, that's just an easy call. Okay? If a dead person voted, we can prove someone's dead because, like, being dead is one of the few things we're good at, like, verifying
Speaker 2: because you
Speaker 0: check to smell. K. And there's a record of it.
Speaker 2: It's called a death certificate.
Speaker 0: So it's like, give me the names of people who are dead who voted, and then we can get their registration, and we can show they voted. Five names. So I go on TV, and I say, this girl, Caroline Johnson, 79 of Waukegan, Illinois voted. Here's her death certificate. She died.
And the campaign sends me this stuff now. I, in general, don't take stuff directly from campaigns because they all lie because their job is to get elected or whatever. So I I'm very wary of campaigns having been around it for 30 years. So, like but I made an exception to my rule, and I got a bunch of stuff from them. Well, like, of the 6 names, 2 of them were still alive.
What? I was so I immediately corrected the next night. CNN did a whole segment on how I was spreading disinformation, which I was, by the way. In this one case, they were right. I was so mad.
I was like,
Speaker 3: I hate you.
Speaker 0: I'm not talking about you. I'm so mad. Anyway, that's the answer. That's what that was. Who are you texting to?
My producer, and I was, like, venting. It's like a producer I was really close to, and I've known him for a long time. He's really smart, and, and he's, like he was someone I could, like, be honest with, and I was like, and by the way, it's so funny. I mean, now I'm doing what was me, which I I will keep to a minimum, but it's like stealing someone's text, like, what, how and by the way, I was an idiot. I should have said, come and arrest me.
I'm not giving you my freaking text messages. Okay? Yeah. But I got bullied into it by a lawyer. I didn't get bullied into it.
I was weak enough to agree with a lawyer. My fault. Never should have done that. Fuck you. They're my texts.
They're total I'm not even named in this case. I that's what I should have said, but I didn't. I said I was mad on the air the next day, but not in language that colorful. But whatever. Whatever.
I try to be I try to be transparent. I mean, I also think, by the way, if you watch someone over time, you don't always know what they really think, but you can tell if someone's lying. You know? You can sort of feel it in people. And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again. I don't wanna lie. You know? I mean, I don't think I'm a liar. I try not to be a liar.
I don't wanna be a liar. I think it's, like, really important not to be a liar.
Speaker 2: You said nice things about me earlier. I'm starting to question.
Speaker 4: So I
Speaker 2: have questions.
Speaker 0: I have
Speaker 2: a lot of questions
Speaker 0: talking about.
Speaker 3: I hate lunch for
Speaker 0: you, man. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna have to see your texts after this.
Speaker 0: My texts are so uninteresting now. It's, like, crazy how uninteresting they are.
Speaker 2: Em emojis and GIFs. Lots of dog pictures. Nice. You said, just some degree, the election was rigged? Was was it stolen?
Speaker 0: Really it was a 100% stolen. Are you choking?
Speaker 2: Rigged to it that large of a Yeah.
Speaker 0: They they completely change the way people vote right before the election on the basis of COVID, which had
Speaker 2: nothing to do with me. Way it was rigged.
Speaker 0: Meaning percent.
Speaker 2: And then Manipulated.
Speaker 0: Then you censor the information people are allowed to get. Anyone who complains about COVID, which is like by the way, it might have hurt Trump. But, I mean, it's like or whatever. I mean, you could play it many different ways. You can't have censorship in a democracy by definition.
Here's how it works. The people rule. They vote for representatives to carry their agenda to the capital city and get it enacted. That's how they're in charge. And then every few years, they get to reassess the performance of those people in an election.
In order to do that, they need a they need access, unfettered access to information, and no one, particularly not people who are already in power, is allowed to tell them what information they can have. They have to have all information that they want, whether the people in charge want it or don't want it or think it's true or think it's false, doesn't matter. And the second you don't have that, you don't have a democracy. It's not a free election, period. And that's very clear in other countries, I guess, but it's not clear here.
So but I would say it's this election that I mean, it took me a while to come to this, but it's this election that's the referendum on democracy. Biden is senile. He's literally senile. He can't talk. He can't walk.
The whole world knows that. Leave our borders. People are, you know, everybody everybody in the world knows it. He can't he can't you can't a senile man is not gonna get elected in the most powerful country in the world unless there's fraud, period. Like, who would vote for a senile man?
He's lit he literally can't talk, and nobody I've ever met thinks he's running the US government because he's not. And so I think the world is looking on at this coming election and saying and a lot of world hates Trump. Okay. It's not an endorsement of Trump. But it's true.
If Joe Biden gets reelected, democracy is a freaking joke. It's just true.
Speaker 2: I think half the country doesn't think he's senile. Just thinks
Speaker 0: Do you really think that? Speaking they don't think he's senile?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think he just has difficulty speaking. It's like, gradual speak. Like, gradual degradation just getting old. So cognitive ability is degrading.
What's the difference between degraded cognitive ability and senility? Well, senility has a threshold. Like, it's beyond the threshold to where he could be a functioning leader.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. That may be a term of art that I don't fully understand, and maybe there's, like, an IQ threshold or something. But I'm happy to go with degraded cognitive ability.
Speaker 2: Sure. But that's an age thing? But he's the leader of
Speaker 0: the United States with the world's 2nd largest nuclear arsenal.
Speaker 2: With you. I'm a sucker for great speeches and for speaking abilities of leaders. And Biden, with 2 wars going on and potentially more, the importance of a leader to speak eloquently, both privately in a room with other leaders and publicly is really important.
Speaker 0: I agree with you that rhetorical ability really matters convincing people if that your program is right, telling them what we're for, national identity, national unity, all come from words. I agree with all of that. But at this stage, even someone who grunted at the microphone would be more reassuring than a guy who clearly doesn't know where he is. And it and I think everyone knows that. And, like, I can't imagine there's an honest person in Washington, which is gonna vote for Biden by 90%, obviously, because they're all dependent on the federal government for their income.
But is there any person who could say, like, out of 350,000,000 Americans, like, that's the most qualified to lead or even in the top 80%. Like, what? That's so embarrassing that that guy is our president. And with wars going on, it's it's scary.
Speaker 2: But it's complicated to understand why those are the choices we have.
Speaker 0: I agree. Well, it's a failure of the system. Clearly, it's not working. If you've got one guy over 80, the the guy other guy almost at 80, like, people that it should not be running any. So white you
Speaker 2: have on the Democratic side, you have, Dean Phillips. You have, RK Junior until recently. I guess he's independent. And then you have Vivek who are all younger people. Yeah.
Why did they not connect to a degree to where It's such an interesting
Speaker 0: I mean, I think it's a really interesting there are oh, there are a 1000000 different answers, and and, of course, I'm I don't fully understand it, even though I feel like I've watched it pretty carefully. But, I would say the bottom line is there's so much money vested in the federal apparatus, in the parties, in the government. As I said a minute ago, our economy is dominated by monopolies, but the greatest of all monopolies is the federal monopoly, which oversees and controls all the other monopolies. So it's like it's really substantially about the money. It's not ideological.
It's about the money. And if someone controls the federal government, I mean, at this point, it's the most powerful organization in human history. Like, it's kinda hard to it's kinda hard to fight that. In the case of Trump, I I know the answer there. They raided Mar a Lago.
They indicted him on bullshit charges. Like and I felt that in myself too. Even I was like, come on. Come on. You know, like, whatever you think of Trump.
And I agreed with his immigration views, and I really like Trump personally. I think he's hilarious and interesting, which he is. But it's like, okay. There are a lot of people in this country. Let's let's get some you know, let's have a at at very least, like, let's have a real debate.
The second messed up your cameras here. Sorry. I'm getting excited. But, the second they raided Mar a Lago on a documents charge as someone from DC, I was like, I know a lot about classification and all that stuff and been around it a lot. That's so absurd that But I was like, now it's not about Trump.
It's about our system continuing. Like, if you can take out a presidential candidate on a fake charge, use the justice system to take the guy out of the race, then we don't have a representative democracy anymore. And and I think a lot of Republican voters felt that way. If they hadn't indicted him, I'm not sure he would be the nominee. I really don't think he would be.
Speaker 2: So now a vote for Trump is a kind of fuck you to the system.
Speaker 0: Or an expression of your desire to keep the system that we had, which is one where voters get to decide. Prosecutors don't get to decide. Look. They told us for 4 years that Trump was, like, a supercriminal or something. I've actually been friends with some supercriminals.
I'm a little less judgy than most, so I didn't discount the possibility that he had, I don't know, he's in the real estate business in New York in the seventies. Like, did he kill someone? I don't know. Yeah. You know?
No. I'm I'm Yeah. Yeah. I'm not joking. And I'm not for killing people, but, like, anything's possible.
Speaker 2: It's good that you took a stand on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. No. I'm not joking.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was like, well, who knows? You know? Real estate. And I didn't know.
And what they came up as was a documents charge? Are
Speaker 4: you joking?
Speaker 0: And then the sitting president has the same documents violation, but he's fine. It's like, it's crazy this is happening in front of all of us. And then it becomes, like, at that point, it's not about Joe Biden. It's not about Donald Trump. It's about preserving a system which has worked, not perfectly, but pretty freaking well for 250 years.
I know you don't like Trump. I get it. Let's not destroy that system. If we can handle another 4 years of Trump, I think we can. So I'll calm down.
What we can't handle is a country whose political system is run by the justice department. Like, that is just you're freaking Ecuador at that point.
Speaker 2: No. So speaking of the Justice Department, CIA and intelligence agencies of that nature, which you've been traveling quite a bit, probably tracked by everybody. Which is, the most powerful intelligence agency, do you think? CIA, Mossad, Mi 6, SVR? You know, keep going.
The chain the Chinese.
Speaker 0: I'd, it depends what you mean by powerful. Which one bats above its weight? We know. Which one
Speaker 2: is Massage, just to be clear, I guess, is what you Well,
Speaker 0: of course. Tiny country. Yeah. It was very sophisticated intel service. Which one has the greatest global reach in comms?
Which one is most able to read your text? I assume the NSA, but Chinese are clearly pretty good. Israel is pretty good. The French actually are Yeah. Surprisingly good for kind of a declining country.
Their intel services are pretty seem pretty impressive. No. I love France, but you know what I mean? And and all that. So the but the question I mean, I grew up around all that stuff.
It that's all totally fine. Like, a a strong country should have a a a strong and capable intel service so its policymakers can make informed decisions. Like, that's what they're for. And so as as Vladimir Putin himself noted, and I I don't talk about it very much, but it's true. I I applied to the CIA when I was in college because, you know, I was familiar with it because of where I lived and had grown up and everything, and I was, like, seemed interesting.
That's honestly the only reason. I was, like, live in foreign countries, see history happen. Like, I'm for that. I applied to the operations directorate. They turned me down on the basis of drug use, actually.
True. But, anyway, whatever. I was unsuited for it, so I'm glad they turned me down. But the point is, I didn't see CIA as a threat partly because I was bathing in propaganda about CIA, and I didn't really understand what it was and didn't wanna know. But second, because my impression at the time was it was outwardly focused.
It was focused on our enemies. I don't have a problem with that as much. The fact that CIA is playing in domestic politics and actually has for a long time was involved in the Kennedy assassination. That's not speculation. That's a fact.
And I confirmed that for someone who had read their documents that are still not public. It's shocking. Like, you can't have that. And I the reason I'm so mad is I really believe in the idea of representative government acknowledging its imperfections. But, like, I should have some say.
I live here. I'm a citizen. I pay your all your freaking taxes. So, the fact that they would be tampering with American democracy is so outrageous to me, and I don't know why Morning Joe is not outraged. This parade of dummies, highly credentialed dummies they have on Morning Joe every day, they don't seem to that doesn't bother them at all.
How could that not bother you? Why is only Glenn Greenwald mad about it? I mean, it's confirmed. It's not like a fever dream. It's real.
They played in the last election domestically. And I guess it shows how dumb I am because they've been doing that for many years. I mean, the guy who took out Mosaddegh lived on my street, you know, one of the Roosevelt's CIA officer. So, I mean, again, I grew up around this stuff, but I never really thought I never reached the obvious conclusion, which is that if the US government subverts democracy in other countries in the name of democracy, it will over time subvert democracy in my country. Why wouldn't it?
That is the corruption is like core. It's at the root of it. The purpose of the CIA was envisioned, at least publicly envisioned, as an intel gathering apparatus for the executives so the president could make wise foreign policy decisions. What the hell is happening in country x? I don't know.
Let me call the agency in charge of finding out. The point wasn't to freaking guarantee the outcome of elections.
Speaker 2: I'm doing a Israel Palestine debate next week. But I have to ask you just your thoughts. Maybe even from a US perspective. What do you think about Hamas attacks on Israel? What was what would be the right thing for Israel to do, and what's the right thing for US to do in this?
If you're looking at the geopolitics of it.
Speaker 0: I mean, it's not a topic that I get into a lot because I'm a non expert. And because I'm not unlike every other American, I'm not emotionally invested in other countries just in general. I mean, I admire them or not. I love visiting them. I love Jerusalem, probably my favorite city in the world, but I don't have an emotional attachment to it.
So, maybe I've got more clarity. I don't know. Maybe less. Here's my view. I believe in sovereignty as mentioned, and I think each country has to make decisions based on its own interest, but also with reference to its own capabilities and its own long term interest.
And it's very unwise for, I'm not a huge fan of treaties. Some are fine. Too many bad. But I think US aid military aid to Israel and the implied security guarantees, some explicit, but many implied security guarantees of the United States to Israel probably haven't helped Israel that much long term. You know?
It's a rich country with a highly capable population. Like every other country, it's probably best if it makes its decisions based on what it can do by itself. So I'm would definitely be concerned if I lived in Israel because I think fair or unfair. And, really, this is another product of technology, social media. Public sentiment in that area is boiling over.
And I think it's gonna be hard for some of the governments in the region, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey to contain their own populate. They don't want conflict with Israel at all. They were all pretty psyched actually for the trend in progress, the Saudi peace deal, which was never signed, but would have been great for everybody. Because, like, trade, peace, normal relations, like, that's good. Okay?
Let's just say. I know John Bolton doesn't like it, but it's it's good. And it's kind of what we should be looking for. But, now it's it's not possible. And, you know, if you had, like, a coalition of countries against Israel, I know Israel's nuclear weapons and has a capable military and all that and the backing of the United States, but, like, you don't it's a small country.
I think I'd be very worried. So there's that, and I don't see any advantage in, to the United States. I mean, I don't I I think it's important for each country to make its own decisions.
Speaker 2: But it also is a place, like you said, where things are boiling over, and it could spread across multiple nations into a major military conflict.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I think very easily could happen. In fact, probably right after Ramadan, if I had to guess. And, yeah, I pray it doesn't. But, again, I don't think you can overstate the lack of wisdom, weakness, short term thinking of American foreign policy leadership.
These are the architects of the Iraq war of the just the totally pointless destruction of Libya, totally pointless destruction of Syria, and the 20 year occupation of Afghanistan that resulted in a return to the status quo. So, like, their of the Vietnam War, their track record of the Korean War even going back 80 years is uninterrupted failures, one after the other. So I just don't have any confidence in those leaders to when was the last time they improved another country? Can you think of that? Oh, the Marshall Plan.
Well, you look at Europe now, and you're like, I don't know, you know, if that worked. But even if it did work, again, 80 years ago. So when was the last country American foreign policy makers improved? So if I were Netanyahu's in a very difficult place politically, impossible. I mean, I'm glad I'm not Netanyahu, and I'm not sure he's capable of making wise long term decisions anyway.
But if I was just, like, an Israeli, I'd be like, I don't know if I want, like, all this help and guidance. So, yeah, I actually think it's worse than just having just returned from the Middle East and talking to a lot of pretty open minded sort of pro Israeli Arabs who want stability above all. The merchant class always wants stability, so I'm on their side, I guess. And, they they're like, man, this could get super ugly super fast. American leadership is completely absent.
The pot it's just all posturing. It's like people like Nikki Haley. You just wonder, like, how does an advanced civilization promote someone like Nikki Haley to a position of authority? It's like, what? Adults are talking.
Adults are talking. Nikhil, can you please go away? Like, that that would be the the appropriate response, but everyone's so intimidated to be like, oh, she's a strong woman. She's so transparently weak and sort of ridiculous and doesn't know anything and is just, like, thinks that jumping up and down and making these absurd blanket statements, repeating bumper stickers is, like, leadership or something. It's like a self confident advanced society would never allow Nikki Haley to advance.
I mean, she's really not impressive. Sorry.
Speaker 2: I I just feel like you hold back too much, and don't tell us what you really think. Sorry. I think you just just speak your mind off.
Speaker 0: Are not I mean, you can completely disagree with my opinions. But in case of Nikki Haley, it's not like an opinion form just from watching television, which I don't watch. It's an opinion form
Speaker 2: from knowing Nikki Haley. So, strong words from Tucker. Well, felt too.
Speaker 0: Well, the world's in the balance. I mean, it's not just
Speaker 2: like This is important stuff.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's not just like, well, you know, what should the capital gains rate be? It's like, do we live or die? I don't know. Let's consult Nikki Haley.
So if you're asking, should we live or die in consulting Nikki Haley, clearly, you don't care about the lives of your children. That's how I feel.
Speaker 2: Not to try to get a preview or anything, but do you have interest of interviewing, Xi Jinping? And if you do, how will you approach that?
Speaker 0: I have enormous interest in doing that. Enormous. And a couple other people, and we're working on it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I should also say, like, it's been refreshing you interviewing world leaders. I think when I've started seeing you do that, it made me realize how much that's lacking.
Speaker 0: Well, yeah. It's just interesting. I mean, I
Speaker 2: from even a historical perspective, it's interesting, but it's also important from a geopolitics perspective.
Speaker 0: Well, it's really changed my perspective, and I've been going on about how American I am, and I think that's a great thing. I love America. But it's also you know, we're so physically, geographically isolated from the world even though I traveled a ton as a kid a lot, you know, more than most people. But even now, I'm like, I'm so parochial. I'm so I see everything through this lens and getting out and seeing the rest of the world to which we really are connected, like, that's real, is is vitally important.
So I yeah. I mean, at this stage, I don't, you know, kind of need to do it, but I really want to just motivated by curiosity and trying to expand my own mind and not be close minded and really see the fullest perspective I possibly can in order to render wise judgments. I mean, that that's, like, the whole journey of life.
Speaker 2: I was just hanging out with Rogan yesterday, Joe Rogan, and, you know, I mentioned to him that it's me being a fan of his show, that I would love for him to talk with you. And he said, he's up for it. Any reason you guys haven't done it already?
Speaker 0: I don't know. I would I there's no I've only met Rogan once, and I and I liked him. I met him at the UFC in New York. He was with That's right. Somebody at we a mutual friend of ours, and, I you know, Rogan changed media.
I mean, maybe more than anybody. And he did it. What I love about what I admire about Rogen without knowing him beyond medium that one time. I mean, I'm still in media, but I've always been in media. You know, it's, like, not a great surprise.
I'm doing what I've always done, just a different format. But Rogen, like, he's got one of those resumes that I admire.
Speaker 2: You know, I like the guy who was like,
Speaker 0: I was a longshoreman. I was a short order cook. I was an astrophysicist. I was he's like, he's called a man of parts, and this guy was a fighter, a stand up comic. He hosted some, you know, Fear Factor.
Like, how did he wind up at the vanguard of, like, the deepest conversations in the country? Like, how did that happen? So I definitely respect that, and I think it's cool. And he Rogen is one of those people who just kind of came out of nowhere. Like, no one helped him.
Mhmm. You know what
Speaker 2: I mean? Doing he was doing the thing that he loves doing, and it somehow keeps accidentally, being exceptionally successful.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And he's curious. So that that's, like, the main thing. And there was a guy, without getting boring, but there was a guy I worked with years ago who, like, kind of dominated cable news, Larry King. And everyone would always beat up on Larry King for being dumb.
Well, I got to know Larry King well, and I was still in host for a while. And Larry King was just intensely curious. He'd be like, why do you wear a black tie, Lex? Look. Because I like black tie.
Why do you like black tie? No. Everyone else wears a striped tie. You wear a black one white. And he was like he was like really interested.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Genuinely. So. Yeah. Totally.
Speaker 0: And and I wanna be like that. I don't wanna think I know everything. That's so boorish and also false. You don't know everything. But I see that in Rogen.
Rogen is, like, wow, how does that work? And people and it's so funny how that's threatening to people. It's like Rogan will just sit there while someone else is, you know, free balling on some far out topic, which, by the way, might be true, probably truer than the conventional explanation. People are like, I don't know. How can he stand that?
You know, he had someone say the pyramids weren't built 3000 years ago, but 8000 years ago, and that's wrong. It's like, first of all, how do you know when the pyramids were built? 2nd, why do you care if someone disagrees with you? Like, what is that? This weird kind of, like, groupthink, it's it's almost like, you know, 4th grade.
There's always, like, some little girl in the front row who's, like, acting as the, you know, kind of the teacher's enforcer. Like, whip around and be like,
Speaker 3: sit down. Didn't you hear it? Missus Johnson said sit down.
Speaker 0: That's like the whole, you
Speaker 3: know, it's like the whole American media.
Speaker 0: How dare you ask that question? And Rogen just seems, like, completely on his own trip.
Speaker 2: Like, he
Speaker 0: doesn't even hear it. He's like, woah. Really? When were the pyramids built? And I was
Speaker 2: like, oh, I love that. Yeah. Curiosity, open mind, and stuff. The thing I admire about him most, honestly, is, that he's a good father. He's a good husband.
He's a good family man, for many years, and, like, that's his, place where he escapes from the world too. And it's just beautiful.
Speaker 0: Without that, man, you're destroyed. Yeah. If I had a wife who was interested at all in any way in what I did, I think I would have gone crazy by by now. When we get home, we don't she's like, how was your day? It was great.
Oh, I'm so proud of you. That's the end of our conversation about what I do for a living, And that is such a wonderful and essential respite from you said, how do I not become an asshole to the extent I haven't? I kinda have. But how do I have, like, not been, you know, transformed into a totally insufferable megalomaniac who, like, is checking his Twitter replies every day or every minute. It's that.
Yeah. You gotta have the core of your life has to be solid and enduring and not just ephemeral and silly.
Speaker 2: So the the 2 of you have known each other for, what, 40 years? We've been together 40 years. Together 40 years?
Speaker 0: 40 years. Yeah. 1984. It was the hottest 15 year old in New Fort, Rhode Island. Wow.
Sounds dirty, but I was I'm talking about myself. I thought I was the hottest person.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You were just looking in the mirror. Yeah. Very nice. So what's what's the secret to a successful relationship, successful marriage?
Speaker 0: I don't even know. I mean, no. I'm I'm serious.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I got married in August 91, so that's well, it's her 30 3rd year of being married. Fall, but the collapse Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. As as noted.
Yeah. So, you know, you hear these people it's actually changed my theology a little bit. Not that I have deep theology, but, like, I grew up in a society in Southern California when when when I was little that was, like, a totally self created society. I mean, Southern California was it was that root of libertarianism for a reason. It was, like, that's where you went to recreate yourself.
And so the the operative assumption there is that you are the sum total of your choices, and that free will is everything. And we never consider questions like, well, why do children get cancer? Like, what do they do to deserve it? Well, of course, nothing. Right?
Because that would suggest that maybe you're not the sum total. Your choices matter. If I smoke a lot, I get lung cancer. If I use fentanyl, I may OD. Got it.
But I don't exercise, I might get fat. Okay. But, like, on a bigger scale, you're not only the subtotal sum total of your choices. Like, things happen to you that you didn't deserve, good and bad. And marriage is and I'll speak for myself.
In that in my case, just one of them. And I could say, I mean, clearly spending time with the person you're married to, talking, enjoying each other. You know, I I have a lot of rituals. We have a lot of rituals that ensure that. But in 40 years, like, you you're like a different person.
You know, I, like, did drugs. I was drinking all the time when we met. You know, it's been a long time since I've been done that. I'm very different, so is she, but we're different in ways that are complimentary and happy. I've never been happier.
So, like, how do we pull that off? Just kind of good luck, honestly. And then I see other peep no. I'm I'm not kidding. But that's true.
I think it's so important not to flatter yourself if you've been successful at something. The thing I've been most successful at is marriage, but I it's not really me. I mean, I haven't.
Speaker 2: So I think what you're indirectly communicating is it's like humility, I think.
Speaker 0: It's not even humility. Humility is the result of a reality based worldview. Sure. Okay. Right.
Once you see things clearly, then you know that you were not the author of all your successes or failures. And I hate the implication otherwise because it suggests powers that people don't have. It's one of the reasons I always hated the smoking debate or the COVID debate. Someone die of COVID. It did not the vaccine.
Speaker 3: See, that's what you get. You smoke cigarettes, you die.
Speaker 0: Well, shit. I've you know? Yeah. If you smoke cigarettes, you more likely to get lung cancer. If you don't if you get whatever.
The cause and effect is real. I'm not denying its existence. It's obvious, but it's not the whole story. There are larger forces acting on us, unseen forces. That's just a fact.
You don't need to be some kind of religious nut, and they act on AI too, and you should keep that in mind. The idea that all
Speaker 2: the same way you said that.
Speaker 0: No. It's true. It's it it's demonstrably true. We're the only society that hasn't acknowledged the truth of that. And the idea that the only things that are real are the things that we can see or measure in a lab, like, that's insane.
That's just dumb.
Speaker 2: In the, religious context, you have these two categories that I really like that of the 2 kinds of people, people who believe they are god and people who know they are not, which is a really interesting division that speaks to humility and a kinda realist world view of where we are in the world. Oh. Can, can atheists be in the latter category?
Speaker 0: No. There are very few atheists. I've never actually met one. There are people who pose as atheists, but no one's purely rational. And everyone I mean, this is a cliche for a reason.
Everyone under extreme stress appeals to a power higher than himself because everyone knows that there is a power higher than himself. So, really, it's just people who are gripped with the delusion that they're god. No one actually believes that. If you're god, jump off the roof of your garage and see what happens. You know what I mean?
No one actually thinks that. But people behave as if it's true, and those people are dangerous. And I will say, by contrast, the only people I trust are the people who know their limits. And I was thinking, actually, this morning in my sauna, of all the people I've interviewed or met, this is someone I never interviewed, but I have talked to him a couple of times. The greatest leader I've ever met in the world is literally a king.
It's MBZ Sheikh Mohammed of Abu Dhabi, who is Muslim. I am definitely not Muslim. I'm Christian. Protestant Christian. And so I don't agree with his religion, and I don't agree with monarchies, but he's the best leader in the world that I've ever met.
And by far, it's, like, not even close. And why is that? Well, there I could bore you for an hour on the subject, but the the the reason that he's such a good leader is because he's guided by an ever present knowledge of his limitations and of the limits of his power and of his foresight. And when you start there, when you start with reality, it's not even humility. Humility can be a pose, like, oh, I'm so I'm so humble.
Okay. Humblebrag is a phrase for a reason. It's like way deeper, and that's just like no. Can I do I have magical powers? Can I see the future?
Speaker 4: No. Okay. That's just a fact.
Speaker 0: So I'm not god. But I've never seen anybody more at ease with admitting that and want than MBZ. Just a remarkable person. And for that reason, he is, like, treated as an oracle. I don't think people understand The number of world leaders who traipse through his house or palace to seek his counsel is there's I I'm not sure that there is a parallel since I don't wanna get too hyperbolic here, but, honestly, since, like, Solomon, where people come from, like, around the world to ask what he thinks.
Now why would they be doing that? Because Abu Dhabi's military is so powerful. I mean, he's rich. Okay. Massive oil and gas deposits, but, like, for a lot of you know, so is Canada.
You know what I mean? And no one is coming to Ottawa, Tahwa to ask Justin Trudeau what he thinks. No. It's humility. That's where wisdom comes from.
You start to think like because I spent my whole life, like, mad at America's leadership class because it's not just Biden or the people in official positions. It's the whole constellation of advisers and thrown sniffers around them. And I'm it's not even that I disagree with them. It's I'm not impressed by them. I'm just not impressed.
They're not that capable. Right? So that's what I was saying about Nikki Haley. I don't think she's Nikki Haley's the most evil person in the world. I think she's ridiculous, obviously.
Everyone's like, oh, Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo. What?
Speaker 2: Great leaders are so rare that when you see one, you know it right away. It blows your mind.
Speaker 0: And what blows my mind about Sheikh Mohammed in Abu Dhabi is that everyone in the world knows it. And I've never seen a story on this, and I and I'm I'm not guessing. I know this is true because I've seen it. Everyone in the world knows it. And so if there's a conflict, he's the only person that people call.
Like, everybody calls the same guy. And it's like he runs this tiny little country, the UAE. I mean, he's the in Abu Dhabi, they're a bunch of Emirates, but he's the president of the country. But still and it's got a ton of energy and all that, so wealth and all that. And Dubai's got great real estate restaurants, but but really it's a tiny little country that wasn't even a country 50 years ago.
So how did that happen? Purely on the basis of his humility and the wisdom that results from that humility.
Speaker 2: That's it. What advice would you give to young people? You got 4. You somehow made them into great human beings. What advice would you give to people in high school?
Speaker 0: Have children immediately. Oh, that Including in high school. Yes. I think that. That's all that matters.
Like, in the end, you know, again, these aren't even cliches anymore because no one says them. But when I was a kid, people always say, on your deathbed, you never wish you spent more time at work. And, I mean, everyone said that. It was like one of these things, and now now I don't think Google allows you to say that. It's like, no, you're gonna wish you spent more time at work.
Speaker 3: Get back to your cube.
Speaker 0: But, I can't overstate from my vantage how true that is. Nothing else matters but your family. And if you have the opportunity and a lot of people are being denied the opportunity to have children. And this messing with the gender roles, and I'm not even talking about the tranny stuff. I mean, the I mean, feminism has so destroyed people's brains and the ability of young people to connect with each other and stay together and have fruitful lives.
It's like nothing's been more destructive than that. It's such a lie. It's so dumb. It's counter to human nature. Nothing counter to human nature can can endure.
It can only cause suffering, and that's what it's done. But fight that. Stop complaining about it. Find someone. By the way, everyone gets together most people get together on the basis in a free in a western society where there's no arranged marriages.
They get together on a base of sexual attraction. Totally natural. Get off your birth control and have children. Oh, I can't afford that. Well, yeah.
You'll figure out a way to afford it once you have kids. It's like it's chicken and the egg, but it's actually not. When you have responsibility, when you have no this is true of men. I'm not sure if true of women, but it's definitely true of men. You will not achieve until you have no choice.
As I always think of men, men do nothing until they have to, but once they have to, they will do anything. That is that is true. Men will do nothing unless they have to, but once they have to, they will do anything. I really believe that from watching and from being 1, and I would never have done anything if I didn't have to, but I had to, and and I would just recommend it. And but by the way, even if you don't succeed, even if you're poor.
But having spent my life among rich people I grew up among rich people. I am a rich person. Boy, are they unhappy? Well, that's clearly not the road road to happiness. You know, you don't wanna be a debt slave or starve to death or anything like that, but, like, making a $1,000,000,000, that's not worth doing.
Don't do that. Don't even try to do that. If you create something that's beautiful and worth having and you make $1,000,000,000, okay, then you have to deal with your $1,000,000,000, which will be the worst part of your life. Trust me. But seeking money for its own sake is a is a dead end.
What you should seek for its own sake is children. Talk about a creative act. Last thing I'll say, the whole point of life is to create. Okay? The act of creation, which is like dying in the West, in the arts and in its most pure expression, which is children, that's all that's worth doing while you're alive.
It's creating something beautiful and creating children. By the way, it's super fun. It's not hard. I can get more technical off the air if you want.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Please. I have a lot
Speaker 0: of thoughts on it. Do you
Speaker 2: have documents or something?
Speaker 0: No. I can I can draw you a schematic?
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you.
Speaker 0: But, yeah, that's the greatest thing. And the fact that corporate America denies oh, freeze your eggs. Have an abortion. What? You're you're evil.
Are you kidding? Because you're taking from people the only thing that can possibly give them enduring joy, And they are successfully taking it from people, and I hate them for it.
Speaker 2: You founded TCN, Tucker Carlson Network. Yeah. What's your vision for it?
Speaker 0: I have no vision for myself for my career, and and I never have. So I'm, like, the last person to explain.
Speaker 2: Just roll with it. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I'm an instinct guy. A 100%. I have a vision for the world, but I don't have a vision for my life or my career. So, really, my vision extended precisely this far. I just wanna keep doing what I'm doing.
I just wanna keep doing what I'm doing. And there was a, you know, a 5 hour period where I wondered if I would be able to because I I feel pretty spry and, like, alert. And I'm certainly deeply enjoying what I'm doing, which is talking to people and saying what I think and learning, constantly learning. And but I just wanted to keep doing that. And so, and I also wanted to employ the people who I worked with at Fox.
I've worked with the same people for years, and I love them. And so I had, you know, all these people, and I wanted to bring them with me, so we had to build a structure for that.
Speaker 2: But this feels like one of the first times you're really working for yourself. Like, the there's an extra level of freedom here.
Speaker 0: Totally. Totally. And the good you know, I'm not you don't want me doing your taxes. Like, I'm good at some things, but I'm really not good at others. So I'm more than would be, like, running a business.
No idea. I'm not interested. Not a commerce guy, so I don't buy anything. So it's, like, a whole thing I'm not good at. But, luckily, you know, I'm really blessed to have friends who are involved in this who are good at that.
So I feel I feel positive about it. But, mostly, I am I'm totally committed to only doing the things that I am good at and enjoy and not doing anything else because I don't wanna waste my time. And, so I'm just getting to do what I wanna do, and I'm really loving it.
Speaker 2: What hope, positive hope, do you have for the future of human civilization in, say 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?
Speaker 0: People are great just by their nature. I mean, they're super complicated, but I I like people. I always have liked people. You know, if I was sitting with Nikki Haley, who I've I guess I've been pretty clear I'm not, like, a mega fan of Nikki Haley's, I would enjoy it. You know, I've never met anybody I couldn't enjoy on some level given enough time.
So as long as nobody tampers with the human recipe, with human nature itself, I will always feel blessed by being around other people. And that's true around the world. Like, I've I've never been to a country, and I've been to scores of countries where I didn't, given a week, really like it and like the people. So, yeah, bad leaders are like a, you know, recurring theme in human history. Like, they're mostly bad, and we've got an unusually bad set right now, but we'll have better ones at some point.
I just don't wanna I don't the one the one thing I don't like more than nuclear weapons and more than AI, the one thing that really, really bothers me is the idea of using technology to change the human brain permanently because you're tampering with the secret sauce. You're tampering with God's creation and, totally evil. I mean, I've literally sat there the other day with Klaus Schwab. I was with Klaus Schwab. It's like a total moron.
I'm, like, 100 years old and, like, has no idea what's going on in the world. But he's, like, one of these guys who, speaking of mediocre, everyone's so afraid of Klaus Schwab. I don't think Klaus Schwab is gonna be organizing anything. He's just like a total figurehead, like a douchebag. But, anyway, but he was talking, and he's reading all these talking points, like, all what the cool kids are talking about at Davos and whatever, And he starts talking about
Speaker 4: it in his revere, in his accent.
Speaker 0: He was saying, I think it's
Speaker 4: so important that we follow in an ethical way, always in an ethical way, of course, very ethical. I'm a very ethical man. That we follow the, you know, using technology to improve the human mind and implant the chips in the brain. And I'm like, okay.
Speaker 0: You have no idea what you're talking about. You're like as senile as Joe Biden. But what was so striking is that no one in the room was like, wait. What?
Speaker 3: You're fucking with people's brains? Like,
Speaker 0: Like, what are you even talking about? Who do you think you are?
Speaker 2: I mean, you're right. The secret sauce. There the human mind is really special. Like, we should not mess with it.
Speaker 0: It's all about
Speaker 2: the truth. Careful. And whatever special thing it does, it seems like it's a good thing. Like, human beings are fundamentally good. Like, these sources of creativity, a creative force in the universe we don't wanna mess with.
Speaker 0: Oh, I mean, what else matters? I I don't understand. I mean, I guess look. I don't I don't wanna seem like the Unabomber, and I'm not We are in a cabin in the woods. No.
I don't. Well, I'm sympathetic to some of his ideas, but not, of course, sending mail bombs to people because I like people. But, and I don't believe in violence at all. But I I think the problem with technology one of the problems with technology is the way that people approach it in a very kind of mindless heedless way. And I think it's important this idea that it's inexorable, and we can't control it, and if we don't do it, someone else will.
And there's some truth in that, but it's not the whole story. We do have free will, and we are creating these things intentionally. And I think it's incumbent on us. It's a requirement of a moral requirement of us that we ask, like, is this a net gain or a net loss? What extent we can foresee them will the effects be?
Etcetera, etcetera. It's like it's not not super complicated. So I just I I prize long term thinking. I don't always apply to my own life, obviously. I I want to.
But, I prize it, and I think that people with power should think about future generations, and I don't see that kind of thinking at all. They all seem like children to me. And, like, don't give children handguns because they can hurt people.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Fundamentally, you want people in power to be pro humanity.
Speaker 0: By the way, you don't want people who are 81 who are gonna die anyway. Why do they care? And by the way, if your track record with your own family is miserable, why would I give you my family to oversee? I just don't I like, again, these are artistic level questions that someone should answer.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for asking those questions, first of all. And, thank you for this conversation. Thank you for welcoming you to the Cabin in the Woods.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to this conversation with Tucker Carlson. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Mahatma Gandhi. When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible.
But in the end, they always fall. Think of it. Always. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.
@lexfridman - Lex Fridman
Here's the links for my conversation with @TuckerCarlson: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lRdkH_QoY Transcript: https://lexfridman.com/tucker-carlson-transcript Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2MAi0BvDc6GTFvKFPXnkCL Podcast: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Transcript for Tucker Carlson: Putin, Navalny, Trump, CIA, NSA, War, Politics & Freedom | Lex Fridman Podcast #414 - Lex Fridman
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #414 with Tucker Carlson. The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors. Here are some useful links: Go back to this episode’s main page Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast Table of Contents Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation. Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript: 0:00 – Introduction 3:53 – Putin 20:07 – Navalny 41:20 – Moscow 1:00:48 – Freedom
lexfridman.com
Page not found
open.spotify.com
Lex Fridman Podcast - Lex Fridman
lexfridman.com
@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?
@AnonymousDigs - Anon Researcher
@TuckerCarlson continues to blow Russia/Ukraine narratives wide open! https://youtu.be/IYDFzdBQ7SY?si=KJcE0EIWAjZGdqIh
@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?
@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