Tucke Carlson’s interview of Russian President Vladimer Putin has faced viscous assault from government/corporate controlled fake news outlets and personalities. The Pfizer pimps are in rampage mode. Attacks range from calling Tucker Carlson a useful idiot to a Putin stooge and Putin Pawn and propogandist along with the constant repetition that Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. Of course, Tucker Carlson is actually a journalist and, in a sense, may be the last American journalist that arose out of the legacy media.

The fear and viscous attacks by media propogandists toward Tucker Carlson for interviewing Putin demonstrate how potentially dangerous this interview is to the current regime. The message is you don’t need to give your attention to this, we’ll tell you what to think. This will work on many people, however in general will backfire and this interview is likely to be one of the most watched in history, at least in the United States.

So called journalists should have been interviewing Putin a few times a year over the past 24 years. Remember, there are three sides to every coin, your side, the other side, and that thin side that nobody pays attention to, is the truth. Yet, these enquiring minds had no curiosity for a quarter of a century. Why is there so much fear over this interview? The Canceling of the A... Schlott, Rikki Best Price: $10.99 Buy New $11.01 (as of 03:02 UTC - Details)

We’ll get to that…

Tucker Carlson’s interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin lasted over two hours. Putin gave a long history of the region to start the interview before addressing the contemporary situation. It was an interesting interview. Tucker should have interjected more, although at times it seemed he was intrigued, and other times it appeared that he did not want to act disrespectfully with the head of state. The most striking difference between listening and watching the Russian President and an American President being interviewed, was the contrast between watching a knowledgeable person give detailed explanations, and a puppet provide soundbites to prescreened questions.

The fear of this interview is in part to the history lesson given by Putin. Although, the dictator could have been more effective if he condensed that presentation. It was the contemporary history lesson that is the threat. Putin’s rehashing the expansion of NATO since the 1990s against Russia’s objections and in violation of agreements, the color revolution and CIA orchestrated coup in Ukraine, the 2014 bombing of Donbass by Ukraine, are all issues that the fake media would prefer to keep concealed from Americans. Even more of a threat is the fact that Putin exemplifies leadership and is very capable of presenting a logical coherent case for his perspective and dispel the media myth that he is an out of control mad man. Maybe a worse threat, is the fact that Putin is signaling that a negotiated peace in Ukraine is acceptable, and the West is rigidly opposing this. If Americans process Putin’s statements about the Russian hypersonic missiles and weapons programs then it may actually register how reckless the rhetoric and actions America and the West have taken.

The responsible response from the United States would have been to immediately seek to deescalate the conflict to reduce loss of innocent lives in Ukraine, and to avoid the potentiality of a direct conflict with Russia. Some argue that due to the reduction of nuclear weapons that a nuclear war with Russia would not destroy the planet and only about 4 billion people would die. That’s encouraging…

Instead of responsibly seeking to deescalate the conflict, the United States and NATO went into full blown propaganda mode. The effectiveness of this propaganda campaign easily measured at the time by watching the dumb dumbs switch their social media frames from virtue signaling that they got the C19 bioweapon injection, to I stand with Ukraine frames.

Military aid and funds were pumped into the dark money laundering slush fund called Ukraine, and the United States and NATO decided to fight a proxy war against Russia. Apparently, nobody read the proxy war 101 handbook that you only fight proxy wars in third world countries, and that it is totally moronic to fight a proxy war in the neighboring country of the other major power. The only potential outcomes of such a proxy war would be the destruction of the superpower in question or a crushing defeat for those engaging in such a proxy war. The latter appears to have occurred.

What was the purpose of engaging in such a stupid foreign policy adventure? Good Energy: The Surpr... Means MD, Casey Best Price: $26.27 Buy New $20.99 (as of 03:02 UTC - Details)

The Russia Ukraine war appears designed to break America.

Surely nobody thought that it was to defeat Russia. I suppose it is possible that there were some idiots that thought that was a possibility, but let’s leave that off the table and consider other potentialities. In doing so it should be noted that very rarely do the people that pull the strings behind the scenes have a single objective. They usually have a dozen or so goals behind an action so that there is always movement toward their goals.

The obvious goal of cashing in on the killing is definitely a subsidiary if not one of the primary objectives. Depopulating in Ukraine is a viable secondary objective. As already inferred, laundering money through Ukraine was at a minimum a secondary goal.

Still, consider the conflict from the perspective of globalism. If the intention was to break the United States, then that goal has been furthered. In fact, consider the possibility that the U.S. military since at least the Post Cold War has been a mercenary force for globalist to further the goal of World Government while simultaneously depleting America of its resources.

Read the Whole Article