I urge you to watch the Tucker Carlson interview with Russian President Vladamir Putin. Colossal sums of your money, taxed out of your wages and purchases, are being spent to sustain an enormous war in Ukraine. You will be better informed, no matter which way you lean. As the cold war begins to reignite, you need to be better informed. As the word ‘conscription’ is bandied about politicians in America and the UK, you need to have a better quality of perspective. If you’re going to be asked to kill and die for a soulless, cultureless, globalist state authority, you deserve to know why you’re fighting.
The elitist media pre-outrage has been another bizarre Orwellian experience in a long line of bizarre Orwellian experiences recently. They’ve been tripping over their own fallacies in an attempt to create the most controversial and inaccurate perspectives they can, claiming at the same time their wish to interview Putin and stating that Carlson is committing a heinous or even treasonous act by interviewing him. They’ve covered it widely, with the most enormous bias. When you’re interviewing a foreign leader of a powerful country armed with hypersonic nuclear weapons that is battling against your own taxed money, the interviewer must show a deference of respect to some degree. Carlson is not unaware that he could be locked up for the interview and that the US elitist machine will do nothing to free him, as Carlson is considered persona non-grata by powerful institutions.
The post-outrage is beginning to take hold, as is the narrative spinning. The cabal of “Trusted News Initiative” lackeys has circled the wagons. The narrative is clear: do not trust Carlson; do not trust independent journalists; do not trust anyone but us; we are the truth; we are the light. They will not allow heretics like Tucker Carlson to challenge them. This shows one thing: we are winning. They are terrified. They couldn’t let it go. The elitist media have launched a “special operation” against independent journalists, and they are losing. The orthodox media is strangling itself as it coalesces the most hardline people into a smaller and smaller circle. It will lose; it cannot win. “The Message” demands you be more and more fervent and ideologically extreme, and fewer and fewer people can keep up with it and are eventually ejected from the chaotic and destructive centre like Hawking radiation out of a black hole.
This BBC News article titles itself with a lie. Carlson sat down to listen to the leader of a country that we are at war with and have been battling one way or another for over a thousand years. Carlson didn’t let Putin run him over; rather, Carlson interrupted, challenged, and pushed back critically, even asking questions in a manner that not many men in the world have the chutzpah to ask of a foreign leader. Carlson asked all the questions that any regular Westerner would want to ask. Why did you go to war? What did you think would happen? What does the future hold? And how do we stop the fighting? Carlson didn’t skimp on detail or avoid controversial topics. This is what makes the title of this BBC Lies article so confusing.
But this is the point of the entire article: They don’t want you to watch it. They don’t want you to believe that this was an important piece of journalism, currently unmatched by the dozens of mega-billion-dollar media corporations (sponsored by Pfizer). Is Carlson’s interview with Putin really such a heinous act? Is it akin to treason? When British Prime Minister Blowjob Johnson torpedoed Zelensky’s peace proposal at the beginning of the conflict, the media said nothing. Since when did liberals become bigger warhawks than early-nineties Republicans? The answer: the moment they took charge of the institutions and the bureaucracy. They want war. They want you to pay for it, and they want you to die in it. The less you know, the better. If only such a journalist as Carlson could interview Zelensky. Questions need to be asked of him too, and foreign journalists get regular opportunities to talk to him, but the questions are inane, benign, unchallenging, fawning, sympathetic, to say the least, and none of the real questions are ever asked. Why did you let Blowjob Johnson torpedo the peace deal? What does victory look like? Is the administration of a couple of ethnically Russian regions worth every life in the Ukraine? What does a loss look like? What does peace look like? If only such an interview could happen.
Tucker Carlson: Putin takes charge as TV host gives free rein to Kremlin – by Sarah Rainsford
Can we first just take a look at that ridiculous title? Look at every single word there. It starts with the journalist's name, as if he’s an entire controversial topic. “Putin takes charge” is an inaccurate perspective on the interview. “TV host” is an insulting term for Carlson considering he’s not on TV, he’s not hosting a show, and he’s actually a journalist. It’s got a funny similarity to Matt Taibbi, the journalist with decades of experience and dozens of accolades, being called “a so-called journalist." “Gives free rein to Kremlin"—what does that even really mean? It’s just vague words thrown together to make the interview sound as bad as possible. Now let’s take a step back from the whole thing. A journalist from America interviewed the Russian President amidst the war in Ukraine. Much was said, and much was learned. Yet the title of the article is trying to add as many layers of controversy as possible to the entire event. Sarah Rainsford has already appeared in a few editions of BBC News Lies. Let’s see what she has in store for us today.
But for the most part, Carlson seemed to lap up what Russia's president was telling him.
Putin was fully in charge of this encounter and for large parts of it his interviewer barely got a word in.
Instead of pushing the Russian leader - indicted as a suspected war criminal - on his full-scale invasion of Ukraine and challenging his false assertions, Carlson swerved off-piste to talk God and the Russian soul.
To anyone who actually watched the interview, these few sentences seem antithetical to what actually happened. Carlson didn’t “lap up” the Russian President's words or let Putin be “fully in charge” in the manner that the article is suggesting. Carlson asked extremely difficult questions again and again, pushing back Putin multiple times on the same issue in a manner that some would find difficult to do in conversation, let alone with the Russian President you’re at war with. It’s confusing to me what Sarah Rainsford saw in this interview that I’m seeming to miss, as I don’t see any shred of “lap up” in it. “Putin was fully in charge” is also a bit of an odd statement, considering he’s the interviewee and, again, the president of a nation we’re at war with. Putin was the star of the show, of course, but it doesn’t seem like an accurate perspective to say he was fully in charge, as if Carlson didn’t have a shot. Carlson got all of his questions out, pushed everything hard, wouldn’t let go of things, and challenged Putin very deeply on certain things, even asking Putin how he could reconcile being a Christian with being a killer. It was uncomfortable watching. We know what can happen to a journalist in Russia for asking these questions.
The last part of the quoted text is essentially just a lie. Carlson pushed the Russian president hard on the war in Ukraine. Part of Putin’s response was to talk about history; people forget that those from ancient and still-alive cultures consider history to be an important part of who they are today. Sarah Rainsford might be missing this nuance, considering the elite of the UK are cultureless and hate their own history. But it’s certainly wrong to suggest that Carlson didn’t spend nearly all of the interview basically talking about it. The BBC journo even suggested that talking about God and the Russian soul has nothing to do with the pushback and challenges surrounding the war in Ukraine; again, Sarah Rainsford may not believe in God, so she won’t necessarily have the nuance to understand that questioning someone’s actions against their religion is an extremely deep and profound way to challenge someone. It was the specific area of the war that these two topics came out of, and it was a continued addressing of Putin's reasons for it.
The American had touted his sit-down with Putin as a triumph for free speech, asserting that he was heading where no Western news outlets dared to tread.
That's untrue. The Kremlin is simply highly selective about who Putin speaks to. It will almost always choose someone who knows neither the country nor the language and so struggles ever to challenge him.
Did any other Western news outlets go speak to Putin? Or are they too busy fawning over the corrupt leader of Ukraine, Zelensky? Asking him how he relaxes, nominating him for prizes, and worshipping the very ground he walks on. Despite what this article says at the end, yes, it was a triumph for free speech. There now exists in the ether of the internet and general consciousness an interview in which Putin speaks bluntly about why he decided to invade Ukraine. He spares no detail, goes into depth on every point, and you are not left confused as to why he believes he had to go to war.
The second paragraph is extremely important here: Carlson revealed that it was never the Putin regime that prevented Carlson from interviewing Putin for the 3 years he’d tried. It was in fact the Biden regime, using the secret service and spying on Carlson’s text messages, that had managed to interfere with the plans to interview Putin. At the end of that paragraph, Sarah Rainsford suggests that Carlson doesn’t know the country or the language and therefore might struggle to challenge him. Carlson does know about the country, and even his father was an American diplomat in Moscow. The language proved to be no barrier also, since the invention of people who speak multiple languages! Every line in this article has been insanely partisan; there’s no other way to put it. Carlson had no trouble challenging Putin again and again, despite what the journo would have you believe.
Carlson's claim also ignored the fact that Russia's president has spent the past two decades in power systematically stamping out free speech at home.
Most recently, he made it a crime to tell the truth about Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Sarah Rainsford attempts to shoot down this incredible moment for free speech, but uses a rather odd argument. She notes that Putin has been locking up Russians for telling the truth about the war, and even just for calling it a war and not a special operation. Yet here Carlson is, an American reporter, breaking all of those rules in search of the truth. He’d dodged the US intelligence services blatant attempts at preventing it; he’d ignored all of the elitist media furor that wanted him to not do it; and he braved the very real danger of being locked up in Russia for asking these questions. By this article's own admission, despite saying otherwise, Carlson has done something extremely powerful for the world. Free speech took centre stage and faced three of its most dangerous opponents: a censorious, warring dictator, a western media that hates non-leftist ideology, and a western elite that hates criticism.
It’s worth being very clear here: yes, Putin is locking up people for talking about the war in Ukraine from the perspective that it is indeed a war. Russia has forever been a censorship-friendly state. It’s also worth throwing in that here in the UK, we’re no strangers to locking people up for speech. Thousands of people in the UK have been arrested, reprimanded, cautioned, fined, charged, and imprisoned, all with speech-related offences, and we’re not talking about conspiracy to commit crime. The UK has very stringent anti-speech laws, and we arrest far more people than the Russians do for speech and thought crime. We're talking about tweets, posts, shares, WhatsApp groups, placards, news, opinions, and more, all of which have resulted in people being prosecuted by the state and persecuted by government-friendly minions.
It was a full two hours into his interview before the former Fox News anchor asked about the US journalist Evan Gershkovich. He was arrested last year in Russia while doing his job and accused of espionage.
Carlson suggested Vladimir Putin might release the reporter into his custody, providing a trophy to return with from his trip.
You really have to be the biggest hater on the planet to even use terms like “provide a trophy” when describing Carlson’s unbelievably brave attempt at, on camera, negotiating for the release of Evan Gershkovich. Seeing language like that, you can’t keep pretending to believe that the BBC is even remotely "impartial.” A whole documentary should be made on this interview: how it came about, how it went down, how Putin reacted, how Russia reacted, and how the Western elites reacted. You could learn so much about our own orthodox elite just by studying their reaction to it. This is something I'm doing right now with this article, and together we're finding out how bad it really is over here in the West.
I can see why little time was spent on this Gershkovich area because, really, the media should be praising Carlson for what he’d said. Carlson single-handedly did more for press freedom in Russia and the release of Gershkovich than anyone else. Carlson challenged Putin on this issue, saying he should be released. Putin refuted, saying no, Gershkovich was committing an act of espionage, guilty of receiving secret information. Carlson pushed back even on this, saying he’s not a spy, he’s a kid, and even saying he’s being held hostage, which one should note would be an offensive accusation to anyone, let alone Putin. Carlson criticises Putin for his position, pushing back again and insisting a second time that Gershkovich is a hostage and that Russia shouldn’t take hostages in this fashion, as it is an ugly act from the perspective of a Christian.
I have to take a moment to emphasise the tenseness of the situation—to be asking something like this, to be criticising and pushing back multiple times, in very strong terms, is an act of enormous bravery in the face of tyranny. He’s frustrating Putin with this line of questioning, questioning the moral, legal, and religious legitimacy of his actions both on the journalist Gershkovich and on the war itself. Let’s just take a moment to realise how difficult it is to find any interviews like this with Western politicians, with 2 hours of unfiltered discussion like a Joe Rogan podcast. No bullshit, no kowtowing, no beating around the bush, no editing, no pre-prepared questions. A trial by friction gets tense, uncomfortable, challenging, and nervous. There are plenty of people that would want to ask these questions of Putin, but let’s be real: could you get into that room, and could you utter those words? Could you really push back on these things in person? Carlson really pushed back a lot on this question about Gershkovich. Do not let Sarah Rainsford lie to you about this. This is why I urge you to watch it yourself; you will feel your own skin crawl as Carlson looks Putin in the eyes, in press-hating Russia, amidst an insane war on the verge of WW3, and ask these questions, challenge those answers, and use those terms.
He aired his regular grievance about Nato expanding east into what Russia sees as its area of influence. "We never agreed Ukraine could join Nato," as Putin put it.
But it's having an aggressive, unpredictable neighbour like Russia that's led Ukraine to seek extra security.
Putin has always characterised the mass public protests in Kyiv a decade ago as part of a Western-backed "coup", which they were not.
He also called the fighting in the eastern Donbas that Moscow provoked a civil war.
It's all part of how Putin justified his full-scale invasion, almost two years ago - along with "de-Nazifying" Ukraine, which he claimed is still a work in progress.
Sarah Rainsford takes everything Putin says as his reason for war and basically says "nu-uh." The expansion of NATO across Europe right up to Russia’s borders has long been a red line for Russia, something they’ve made very clear from the start. It’s difficult for Sarah Rainsford to even touch this particular subject, as there aren’t really any mitigating factors for NATO's non-stop expansion towards the Russian border. The West would certainly not accept an armed Warsaw Pact country in the Caribbean (they tried to invade Cuba, assassinate its leader, and even subjected it to brutal sanctions as a result), so why accept the vice versa?
Look at some of the ways the BBC journo broaches some of Putin’s claims, stating them in one half of the sentence and then discounting them in the second half of the sentence. It seems that Sarah Rainsford believes there wasn’t really any reason for Putin to invade Ukraine—maybe he did it because he was bored one Thursday. Apparently NATO’s expansion isn’t a good enough reason, that it was Russia’s fault that NATO expanded, that the coup in Ukraine wasn’t Western-backed (it was), that Ukraine doesn’t have a Nazi problem, and that the fighting in Donbas next to Russia’s border was a big ole nothing. I’m not even trying to suggest any of them are good reasons, valid, or even based on truth, but when the guy who started the war tells you why he started the war, you need to listen. All of that history isn’t some kind of joke or game Putin plays; it’s real life to him. It’s real life, living history, to the Russians that really support him, even if their support of the war wavers.
It seems Putin agreed to this chat from a position of relative strength.
The entirety of the following passage stems from this bizarre idea that Putin has now agreed to this because he’s at strength, completely ignoring the fact that Carlson has been attempting this interview for 3 years, only to be thwarted by US intelligence agencies each time. It completely negates all of the following nonsense about how Putin has agreed to this now because of “Ukraine fatigue” and the completely irrelevant sacking of Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the ex-Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine's armed forces. He’s also not sacked him in the traditional sense: Zelensky is correctly trading out one set of skills for another, Zaluzhnyi, who brought the army out of the stone age and turned it into a drone-centric machine, in exchange for Syrskyi, who can find battlefield victories using this new army. The whole article stinks of “I don’t have a clue what’s going on,” and it’s resulted in these unfounded theories.
Much of this article isn’t quoted, but every single choice of word is layered in this liberal, elitist, furrowed-brow disdain that makes it difficult reading for anyone who actually watched the interview. People who watched it were "fans." It wasn’t a “free speech triumph." Carlson was "bored." Putin’s eyes “burned with conviction." Russia was a “spurned lover." There are ugly lies too. “None of Putin’s statements were challenged in essence." “Carlson swerved off-piste to talk God." You can tell it’s an elitist liberal when they use skiing terminology like "off-piste." This was not an unbiased report on the interview. The fact that we’ve received this drooling orthodox interpretation of events, as opposed to, say, an objective and nonpartisan breakdown of what Putin had said, what it meant, what we learned, and what happens next, tells us everything we need to know about orthodox media. They’re as entrenched as the soldiers are in their narrative, and they will not even entertain a discussion. Much like Blowjob Johnson, they’ll torpedo peace and open discussion at every opportunity.
To sit down in front of Putin, despite his government's intervention, despite the danger he was in interviewing Putin, despite everything, to challenge Putin, criticise him, push back, and dig deeper, knowing that the US wouldn’t do anything to help him if he’d gotten locked up: Tucker Carlson has balls the size of planets. Free speech, for the first time in a long time in the West, had a major victory here. This article by Sarah Rainsford is just part of the post-event cope and seethe that is attempting to condemn the entire affair before attempting to slowly forget it ever happened. Carlson showed all of these mega-billion-dollar news empires how journalism is done.