1. Introduction Relief. If there’s a single word that captures how I felt after watching Tucker Carlson’s two-hour interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, that’s it. Relief that the president of one of the world’s most powerful nations is eminently sane—intelligent, well-educated, and deeply common-sensical. This is not a leader looking to start a fight with anyone he doesn’t have to. Although Carlson seemed frustrated by it, Putin’s magisterial command of Russian and European history going back to the earliest origins of the Russian nation over a millennia ago revealed a man of great depth. This is what is known in research circles as providing context, something dreadfully lacking in today’s split-second media attention span. At least, in the West. Carlson at least tips his hat to Putin’s “encyclopedic” knowledge, evidence of his eidetic memory capacity. Compare that with US President
This was a fine reflective essay on Tucker’s excellent interview with President Putin. I appreciated your expression of your feelings as the interview evolved and I shared these feelings of relief in the face of Putin’s sanity and intelligence-- as well the sense of gratitude to Tucker for his courage and openness in allowing Putin to say his piece. I do think we must be circumspect about interpreting Tucker’s depth and adoption of certain postures in the dance with Putin. For example, Mr Carlson frequently furrows his brown in almost every interview and it is not indicative of confusion or a negative state as a listener -- I’m not sure what it means all the time, but often it seems to be an expression of deep and soulful listening aimed at drawing out the heart of his subject. Similarly, Tucker’s protests about President Putin’s long explanation of the history of his people and regional contexts may have been a preemptive defense against being accused of being “steamrolled” and criticisms his critics might have used to denigrate Tucker’s independence and neutrality. He was walking a delicate line if we take in the threat and hatred that has been lobbed at him. I was very moved by the story at the end about the soldiers who did not want to surrender and the ones who did not want to slay them. Tucker was visibly almost choked up by this tragic story and in that moment he and Putin spoke soul to soul. I have seen Tucker’s work since he was liberated from Fox as basically moving under new management-- that being the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit of God.💜
I hear what you're saying (and like how it was said), and agree that there is a risk of seeing spooks everywhere, which was ever a risk within freedom/resistance/opposition movements. Such is my personal tendency having seen it time and again. Some things are only ever going to be known with a limited degree of certainty though, so rather than always settling for an either/or, it is possible and often desirable to practice holding multiple perspectives simultaneously until such a time as circumstance collapses the probability wave, so to say, into a more definitive either/or. The value of collecting multiple perspectives is that however the picture finally forms for one, it's bigger and clearer than it might have been without them.
Nicely said. The Substacker you linked to uses a lot of inductive reasoning, which can be dangerous, especially when making inferences from posed photo shoots, such as with the many celebrity photos shown as examples. With many of them, we have no way of knowing that they were signalling some kind of Satanic allegiance. e.g. The Lennon photo with a flower in one eye could just as easily be interpreted as a lead-in to the Beatles' Flower Power/psychedelia period. Or the Rod Stewart album cover, obviously the end result of a graphic designer's layout. Can we know that they started with the intention to give the "one-eye signal"? No, unless each of these celebrities were interviewed specifically on this point. This Substack post to me is a very low quality assessment so I wouldn't give it much weight. To me the whole "Satanism" trope is just another deflection from far more important and serious issues facing us.
I appreciate that you took the time to follow the link and the feedback. I know what you mean re the inductive reasoning, but I pointed it out not in support of any argument as such, but as, as I said, another piece for the puzzle. I've yet to come to a conclusion about what the "one-eye signal" or for that matter "the devil's handsign" mean within the context of those gestures being made. But the volume of instances and, in the case of "the devil's handsign", the wide variety of individuals displaying it, from Popes to naval admirals, royal family, politicians and music celebrities is highly suggestive of something going on.
You say that the Lennon instance may have been his lead-in to the Beatles' Flower Power/psychedelia period as if that would somehow exonerate him, when a deeper study of the Flower Power/psychedelia period, especially the LSD aspect of it, reveals the involvement of the CIA and their attempts/intentions to use LSD to difuse the antiwar movement. Leary himself admitted to working with the CIA, and the Grateful Dead gigs were some of their best acid-selling outlets. It's been interesting to observe my own responses on discovering personalities I admire being implicated in this sort of thing, like "maybe...wasn't part of it and was just trying to send us a message". Like you say, we'll never know.
As far as the "Satanism" trope being another deflection from more important issues, I disagree. There is a possibility that what the trope contains is actually relevant to what's going on generally and specifically. Veering a little more off the topic of this post, but in reply to the point you made in your reply, I think the references to Satanic and Satanism are used by some to trigger instant rejection of the claim and turn people off deeper inspection of the issue. But just because concepts like ritualistic child sacrifice or drinking adrenochrome are way out there on the fringes of possibility in most people's worldview doesn't make then any less possible. To illustrate what I mean, I consider David Icke to be one of the foremost sociopolitical researchers of the late twentieth century. I don't like his style of speaking, but his books are impressively researched. When I heard of him talking about shapeshifting reptilian extraterrestrials I immediately thought that he'd been got at and had that kind of material transmitted into his mind, (using technology that allegedly had been developed by the DoD et al more than a decade earlier), so that he'd start spouting this stuff and discredit himself. But when I read his writings on what he calls The Reptilian Agenda I could see that there was some coherent reasoning behind his claims. It's still a bit far out for me to be comfortable with, but after having reviewed the evidence, I can't dismiss it. And so it is with the Satanism trope as you call it. I have experience with survivors of ritualistic child abuse in the UK and know for a fact that it exists, especially in the upper echelons of UK law, finance, politics and media. The rituals and ritualistic settings are real. Whether or not the perpetrators believe they're doing it for the devil, I don't know, but I doubt it. But the rituals and ritualistic settings seem to be part of a very old tradition being continued by these groups and individuals. Add to that the kind of activities described by Ronald Bernard (child sacrifice) happening amongst the very upper echelons in Europe, and link that with the Pizzagate material which implicated many other highly placed people in law, finance and politics in the US, claims that were immediately "debunked" and "fact-checked", but elements of which have since been confirmed. If there's one thing that would unite people across the spectrums of race, religion, and politics it would be the knowledge that those with their hands on the levers of power are involved in this kind of activity and the largest market for the victims of child trafficking, which makes an open-minded investigation of that trope a worthwhile endeavor. Which, thinking about it, could be seen as inductive reasoning.
I'm aware of the CIA's undermining of 60s youth counterculture by flooding it with LSD. I had some terrible experiences with street-sourced LSD back in the day. Although Carlos Castenada's books were later "debunked," they made the important point that in indigenous cultures, hallucinogens have been used for thousands of years as a spiritual enlightenment tool or a rite of passage. But this is done in a carefully managed situation with elders present to provide guidance, not as a random recreational activity.
As to the whole Satanism in the upper echelons issue, I don't really know what to think. I've written in my book Words from the Dead that beliefs or stories, no matter how irrational or unlikely, unfortunately have consequences in the real world. While I don't believe in an entity known as Satan, it's clear that such beliefs can lead to bizarre and even inhuman practices. Thus, it's best if such beliefs are avoided at all costs, not even indulging one's curiosity about it.
Are all these superstar entertainers in on it? Who knows? Has anyone come out in a memoir and admitted it? None so far that I've seen. Entertainers and actors can be notoriously fickle followers of fads (pardon the alliteration).
Many thanks for embellishing the details of the background of the things that Putin spoke of.
I apologise for being a naysayer. I'm not critting your article as such, but it's a bit distressing how everybody is talking about the interview. Not 'that', 'how', seemingly without a perspective that includes the very real possibility that it, the interview, and many things leading up to it was and have been meticulously stagemanaged. It was with relief that I just read Kit Knightly's commentary in the Off Guardian https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/10/what-no-one-is-saying-about-tucker-carlsons-putin-interview/, which I'm linking here, in the spirit of perspective widening.
Thanks for the link; I'm always willing to consider a contrary perspective. With respect, though, I think Knightly is leaning a little too heavily into the "look out, he's just another infiltrator" narrative that has been fracturing the Freedom movement heavily the past couple of years. What bothers me about that is twofold: 1) it plays into intelligence agency fifth generation warfare, i.e. psyops, which promotes the threat of infiltrators to cause division within the movement; and 2) it allows zero possibility that even a major media figure is capable of having an epiphany, an awakening that puts them on the path to truth. Surely scientists do this all the time—if they have integrity—change their opinions based on new data. In a sense this is part of the meta-narrative in Western culture right now emanating from the "woke" psyop: there is NO possibility of redemption, something that at least the Christianity they're trying to destroy allowed as a potential for everyone.
This was a fine reflective essay on Tucker’s excellent interview with President Putin. I appreciated your expression of your feelings as the interview evolved and I shared these feelings of relief in the face of Putin’s sanity and intelligence-- as well the sense of gratitude to Tucker for his courage and openness in allowing Putin to say his piece. I do think we must be circumspect about interpreting Tucker’s depth and adoption of certain postures in the dance with Putin. For example, Mr Carlson frequently furrows his brown in almost every interview and it is not indicative of confusion or a negative state as a listener -- I’m not sure what it means all the time, but often it seems to be an expression of deep and soulful listening aimed at drawing out the heart of his subject. Similarly, Tucker’s protests about President Putin’s long explanation of the history of his people and regional contexts may have been a preemptive defense against being accused of being “steamrolled” and criticisms his critics might have used to denigrate Tucker’s independence and neutrality. He was walking a delicate line if we take in the threat and hatred that has been lobbed at him. I was very moved by the story at the end about the soldiers who did not want to surrender and the ones who did not want to slay them. Tucker was visibly almost choked up by this tragic story and in that moment he and Putin spoke soul to soul. I have seen Tucker’s work since he was liberated from Fox as basically moving under new management-- that being the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit of God.💜
I agree Tucker Carlson is one of our most fearless journalists right now, so dedicated to finding the truth!
I hear what you're saying (and like how it was said), and agree that there is a risk of seeing spooks everywhere, which was ever a risk within freedom/resistance/opposition movements. Such is my personal tendency having seen it time and again. Some things are only ever going to be known with a limited degree of certainty though, so rather than always settling for an either/or, it is possible and often desirable to practice holding multiple perspectives simultaneously until such a time as circumstance collapses the probability wave, so to say, into a more definitive either/or. The value of collecting multiple perspectives is that however the picture finally forms for one, it's bigger and clearer than it might have been without them.
I came across another piece for the puzzle yesterday. I'll include the link to that and as a nod to a stack associated with some others who are doing some important blood work that needs sharing, https://divadrops.substack.com/p/tucker-keeping-one-eye-open-on-this
Nicely said. The Substacker you linked to uses a lot of inductive reasoning, which can be dangerous, especially when making inferences from posed photo shoots, such as with the many celebrity photos shown as examples. With many of them, we have no way of knowing that they were signalling some kind of Satanic allegiance. e.g. The Lennon photo with a flower in one eye could just as easily be interpreted as a lead-in to the Beatles' Flower Power/psychedelia period. Or the Rod Stewart album cover, obviously the end result of a graphic designer's layout. Can we know that they started with the intention to give the "one-eye signal"? No, unless each of these celebrities were interviewed specifically on this point. This Substack post to me is a very low quality assessment so I wouldn't give it much weight. To me the whole "Satanism" trope is just another deflection from far more important and serious issues facing us.
I appreciate that you took the time to follow the link and the feedback. I know what you mean re the inductive reasoning, but I pointed it out not in support of any argument as such, but as, as I said, another piece for the puzzle. I've yet to come to a conclusion about what the "one-eye signal" or for that matter "the devil's handsign" mean within the context of those gestures being made. But the volume of instances and, in the case of "the devil's handsign", the wide variety of individuals displaying it, from Popes to naval admirals, royal family, politicians and music celebrities is highly suggestive of something going on.
You say that the Lennon instance may have been his lead-in to the Beatles' Flower Power/psychedelia period as if that would somehow exonerate him, when a deeper study of the Flower Power/psychedelia period, especially the LSD aspect of it, reveals the involvement of the CIA and their attempts/intentions to use LSD to difuse the antiwar movement. Leary himself admitted to working with the CIA, and the Grateful Dead gigs were some of their best acid-selling outlets. It's been interesting to observe my own responses on discovering personalities I admire being implicated in this sort of thing, like "maybe...wasn't part of it and was just trying to send us a message". Like you say, we'll never know.
As far as the "Satanism" trope being another deflection from more important issues, I disagree. There is a possibility that what the trope contains is actually relevant to what's going on generally and specifically. Veering a little more off the topic of this post, but in reply to the point you made in your reply, I think the references to Satanic and Satanism are used by some to trigger instant rejection of the claim and turn people off deeper inspection of the issue. But just because concepts like ritualistic child sacrifice or drinking adrenochrome are way out there on the fringes of possibility in most people's worldview doesn't make then any less possible. To illustrate what I mean, I consider David Icke to be one of the foremost sociopolitical researchers of the late twentieth century. I don't like his style of speaking, but his books are impressively researched. When I heard of him talking about shapeshifting reptilian extraterrestrials I immediately thought that he'd been got at and had that kind of material transmitted into his mind, (using technology that allegedly had been developed by the DoD et al more than a decade earlier), so that he'd start spouting this stuff and discredit himself. But when I read his writings on what he calls The Reptilian Agenda I could see that there was some coherent reasoning behind his claims. It's still a bit far out for me to be comfortable with, but after having reviewed the evidence, I can't dismiss it. And so it is with the Satanism trope as you call it. I have experience with survivors of ritualistic child abuse in the UK and know for a fact that it exists, especially in the upper echelons of UK law, finance, politics and media. The rituals and ritualistic settings are real. Whether or not the perpetrators believe they're doing it for the devil, I don't know, but I doubt it. But the rituals and ritualistic settings seem to be part of a very old tradition being continued by these groups and individuals. Add to that the kind of activities described by Ronald Bernard (child sacrifice) happening amongst the very upper echelons in Europe, and link that with the Pizzagate material which implicated many other highly placed people in law, finance and politics in the US, claims that were immediately "debunked" and "fact-checked", but elements of which have since been confirmed. If there's one thing that would unite people across the spectrums of race, religion, and politics it would be the knowledge that those with their hands on the levers of power are involved in this kind of activity and the largest market for the victims of child trafficking, which makes an open-minded investigation of that trope a worthwhile endeavor. Which, thinking about it, could be seen as inductive reasoning.
I'm aware of the CIA's undermining of 60s youth counterculture by flooding it with LSD. I had some terrible experiences with street-sourced LSD back in the day. Although Carlos Castenada's books were later "debunked," they made the important point that in indigenous cultures, hallucinogens have been used for thousands of years as a spiritual enlightenment tool or a rite of passage. But this is done in a carefully managed situation with elders present to provide guidance, not as a random recreational activity.
As to the whole Satanism in the upper echelons issue, I don't really know what to think. I've written in my book Words from the Dead that beliefs or stories, no matter how irrational or unlikely, unfortunately have consequences in the real world. While I don't believe in an entity known as Satan, it's clear that such beliefs can lead to bizarre and even inhuman practices. Thus, it's best if such beliefs are avoided at all costs, not even indulging one's curiosity about it.
Are all these superstar entertainers in on it? Who knows? Has anyone come out in a memoir and admitted it? None so far that I've seen. Entertainers and actors can be notoriously fickle followers of fads (pardon the alliteration).
Many thanks for embellishing the details of the background of the things that Putin spoke of.
I apologise for being a naysayer. I'm not critting your article as such, but it's a bit distressing how everybody is talking about the interview. Not 'that', 'how', seemingly without a perspective that includes the very real possibility that it, the interview, and many things leading up to it was and have been meticulously stagemanaged. It was with relief that I just read Kit Knightly's commentary in the Off Guardian https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/10/what-no-one-is-saying-about-tucker-carlsons-putin-interview/, which I'm linking here, in the spirit of perspective widening.
Thanks for the link; I'm always willing to consider a contrary perspective. With respect, though, I think Knightly is leaning a little too heavily into the "look out, he's just another infiltrator" narrative that has been fracturing the Freedom movement heavily the past couple of years. What bothers me about that is twofold: 1) it plays into intelligence agency fifth generation warfare, i.e. psyops, which promotes the threat of infiltrators to cause division within the movement; and 2) it allows zero possibility that even a major media figure is capable of having an epiphany, an awakening that puts them on the path to truth. Surely scientists do this all the time—if they have integrity—change their opinions based on new data. In a sense this is part of the meta-narrative in Western culture right now emanating from the "woke" psyop: there is NO possibility of redemption, something that at least the Christianity they're trying to destroy allowed as a potential for everyone.