Tucker Talks to Putin
If you have not seen the interview, it is a remarkable thing to watch, not the least because the interviewer neither interrupts the subject being interviewed, nor argues in favor of the statist-corporate goodthink viewpoint, nor uses the opportunity to display fake virtue. Tucker lets Putin talk.
Putin, on his side, is fell and subtle in his answers, showing the most adroit political rhetoric I have seen in a generation. No lie is outright or direct. No gaslighting. But, like an able mob-lawyer, he is careful to shade the truth, downplaying or omitting whatever does not help his case. He delicately deflects any question it would be impolitic to answer directly.
That he has a case to make, whether the jury is persuaded of it or not, is itself a shock to ears conditioned by long repetition to so-called political debates that consist of nothing but vapid name-calling and peacock-tail displays of false virtue.
One of the two parties in my nation is addicted to gaslighting, to telling lies for the sake of lies, and the more outrageous the better: Men are women; Epstein’s death was suicide; No Nonwhite is racist; Trump is Hitler; Biden is not demented.
This party, and its vast legion of spokemodels, hence has long ago left behind any pretense of using reason, logic, or facts to make a case. The epee of rhetoric rusts. And so the other party, grown dull and weak from a like disuse of arms, has forgotten how to parry or counterstrike.
To hear Putin put his answers so adroitly, saying and not saying whatever best supported his case favoring war, was disorienting in its rarity.
More remarkable is the reaction from the New World Order, speaking through their various mouthpieces and sock-puppets. The sight of antijournalist shills for Big Brother dismissing the sole act of journalism seen in a generation as being an embarrassment to journalism, and the sound of hearing conspirators incestuously intertwined with Big Brothers denouncing an honest man as a conspiracy theorist, induces disgust too deep for dismissive laughter.
The people who object to this interview are evil, and regard you, not merely as slaves, but as stupid slaves, unable to hear from the enemy without becoming the enemy.
In their case, the fear is reasonable. All of our public institutions have hypnotically conditioned three generations uncritically to accept anything, no matter how absurd, said by a confident authority, and to reject anything, no matter how self-evident, the authorities anathematize. The ability to hear a tyrant justify his wars in terms of a lecture about the history of the region involved is an ability carefully and thoroughly lobotomized from the main mass of the unwary from childhood upward.
Those who cried for the war of Putin without thought, may well just as easily cry for ceasefire without thought. As the saying goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, or, in the case, what is good for the Gaza is good for the Donbas.
They fear the Frankenstein monster they have made will turn and rend them. Such is always the drawback of mob-rule.
But Putin, as all clever men do, peppered his propaganda with truth and partial truths, including those the globalist corruptniks currently installed in the White House cannot easily answer nor renounce. So, again, the fear is reasonable: the fear of dimwitted crooks caught without an alibi.
Myself, I would like to hear both sides of the issue, and to hear the witnesses cross examined, before rendering judgment.
Let Putin speak. I would give even the Devil the benefit of law, and let him say his piece. If we are convinced by one argument without hearing the counterargument, more fool us.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
