The Economist ran a headline claiming to cover the "real message" of "Putin's chat with Tucker Carlson," but provided nothing in the way of the interview itself so the magazine's readers can evaluate it themselves.
"The Economist did not present a review of the interview; it was a typical propaganda piece that did nothing but insult Tucker and Putin and never dealt with any facts," wrote Martin from Armstrong Economics about the hit piece.
"Perhaps they were upset that their former [British] Prime Minister Johnson went to Ukraine to tell Zelensky he was not allowed to sign a peace deal and fight until the last Ukrainian died."
Neoconservatives, aka neocons, meaning war hawks primarily on the right but also on the left, similarly blasted the interview and smeared its true intent, arguing that Putin presented a "false history" about the history of Russia and Ukraine.
"This way that 'false history' would dominate everyone's opinions the next day, managing the Overton Window of the entire interview, making it all about that," reported ZeroHedge. "This would be the basis of how they discredit Putin."
(Related: Check out our earlier report about Tucker's interview with Putin and what it aimed to accomplish.)
NSA, CIA blocked Tucker Carlson from interviewing Putin for three years
The establishment also went after Tucker himself, with two-time failed presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton calling him a "useful idiot," a "poppy dog," and a joke in Russian media. Regardless of how someone sees Carlson concerning those first two points, the third is a flat-out lie.
Thanks to your generous support, we are building the infrastructure of human freedom and actively donating our technology to independent publishers, authors and home schooling organizations. Learn about our game-changing non-commercial AI project here. Support our ongoing efforts to preserve and enhance human knowledge by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com.
All of this name-calling and hatred from the establishment is a desperate attempt to distract the world away from seeing what the interview actually accomplished, which was to present a calm and collected version of Putin in unfiltered form, which is rare.
For many years, the West has denigrated Putin as a maniacal dictator and lunatic, which he clearly was not in Carlson's interview. Americans got to see a different side of Putin, thanks to Carlson.
We also learned that Carlson was denied this very interview for a full three years by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), with Fox News even going so far as to cancel Carlson from its network because he was straying too far from the narrative.
"Knowing that Tucker tried for three years to get this interview with Putin, we should assume that Putin would come into the room prepared," ZeroHedge reported.
"So, it makes sense that Putin wanted to give us a history lesson because he assumes, rightly, that most Americans do not have any clue about Russia's history ... He didn't do this to bore us, he did this to inform us and set us at ease. To tell us that he is a man with a perspective that he believes he can justify ... He's not a frothing-at-the-mouth cannibal who desires world domination."
Not once did Putin talk down to his audience, nor did he get riled up or angry. All he did was simply lay out another side of the story that is almost never told in the West, including the following three points:
• Putin once asked Bill Clinton if Russia could join NATO
• George W. Bush unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty
• Putin is the one who pushed for the Minsk Agreements, which were the last hope for settling the differences between the Donbass and Kiev
Whether you agree with his version of history or not, Putin was able to speak for himself for once, which is something most people in the West have never gotten to hear.
The West is falling apart faster than a Chinese-made trinket. Learn more at Collapse.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
