London’s Evening Standard late yesterday, February 7:
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson could face sanctions over his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, EU lawmakers have warned.
The Kremlin confirmed Putin had been interviewed by Carlson on Wednesday, making it the first interview the president has given to a Western journalist since his full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago.
Bully for Tucker Carlson, I say. But what do I know? I’m not in Brussels, where the great and the good of the EU – having sabotaged their own economies to please their Washington handlers through economic sanctions lesser folk see as boomeranging big time – gather to double down on their treachery and folly.
No, just an ingenue, his brain clouded by the quaint idea that, before going even further down the road to Armageddon, we might directly access and for once make up our own mind about the thinking of a man vilified 24/7 by systemically corrupt media; a vilification I see as having borne fruit in a spectacular inability to reason in the West, its intelligentsia not excepted.
As I wrote two weeks ago, in What of ideology when reality intrudes:
On many matters ‘quality’ media serve us tolerably well but this truth enables a greater lie. They need to show good faith even when doing so may embarrass those in high office. (Not only does their long term capacity to influence opinion and manufacture consent depend on it. So too, on pain of losing market share, do their business models.) But the trust so gained helps them mislead us, more by omission than commission, on matters critical – above all the vilifying of states and leaders in the way of empire designs – to the power they ultimately serve.
The Standard continues:
But the interview could see him targeted by European Union lawmakers, current and former members of the European Parliament told Newsweek.
Former Belgian Prime Minister and member of the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt has said Carlson’s work in Russia could put him in hot water with the EU.
Recall how that famously undemocratic – does it run in the family? – emblem of entitlement and incompetence, Ursula von der Leyen, opened her address to the World Economic Forum at Davos with an attack on “misinformation”:
… the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate. It is disinformation and misinformation, followed closely by polarisation in our societies. Many of the solutions lie not only in countries working together but, crucially, on businesses and governments, businesses and democracies working together.
You see? It’s not widening inequality – as dysfunctional as it is obscene – that polarises society. Nor is it the forever wars. No, it’s misinformation. That’s me making the link explicit, btw. I can’t decode her following of ‘misinformation’ with ‘polarisation’ as other than a dog-whistle claim that the one causes the other.
Where would we be without Queen Ursula to straighten out – as does Tony Blair – the kinks in our thinks on what divides us?
She wants social media corps hit with huge fines for allowing “disinformation”. Let’s set aside the acceptance as natural and unremarkable that so vital a common as social media would be owned by zillionaires, and focus instead on an equally glaring elephant in the room. Who gets to define “disinformation”? Given this century’s form on demonising or marginalising eminent voices who dissent from mainstream narratives, and back that dissent with hard fact and sober reason, the signs are not good. Think 9/11 .. Syria .. Covid … China rising …
Think – naturally after consulting my many learned posts on the subject – Russia:
Of course the likes of Queen Ursula begin with tropes that play well with the majority. Of course they start with the low hanging fruit. As Pastor Niemöller might have put it: “first they came for the climate change deniers, and I said nothing because I was not a climate change denier …”
(Both Germany and Russia outlaw “Holocaust denial”. A slippery slope if you ask me. Whatever happened to countering bad ideas with good arguments? And for that matter with derision?)
Back to the Standard:
[Verhofstadt] told Newsweek Carlson was “a mouthpiece” of Donald Trump and Putin, adding: “As Putin is a war criminal and the EU sanctions all who assist him in that effort, it seems logical that the External Action Service examine his case as well.”
The EU’s External Action Service (EAS) is the bloc’s diplomatic arm, responsible for foreign policy.
MEP Urmas Paet has highlighted how Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and accused of genocide and war crimes.
He said: “Carlson wants to give a platform to someone accused of crimes of genocide—this is wrong.
I’m trying to take Urmas Paet seriously, really I am …
… Just kidding. Of course I’m not! I wouldn’t give time of day to a man who, with all that’s going down in Gaza, can say such a thing with a straight face. In truth though, Urmas Paet’s name, in a West morally and intellectually adrift, is Legion.
“If Putin has something to say he needs to say it in front of the ICC. At the same time Carlson is not being a real journalist since he has clearly expressed his sympathy for the Russian regime and Putin and has constantly disparaged Ukraine, the victim of Russian aggression.
“So, for such propaganda for a criminal regime, you can end up on the list of sanctions. This concerns primarily travel ban to EU countries.”
Whenever I watch Mr Putin speak I’m struck by his gravitas and sobriety. The real kind. It shows the West’s politicians for the vainglorious, sound-byte obsessed empty-heads they not only are but, given the nature of our ‘democratic’ processes and systemically corrupt media, have to be.
Call me a dirty rotten misinformation peddler if you will. I can live with that. But I’ll be tuning to that interview as soon as it streams. And posting the link. 1
I should make clear I disagree vehemently with Tucker Carlson on many things. But like others on the right – Judge Andrew “small state” Napolitano for one; Peter Hitchens for another – he is often closer than the ‘woke’ ever get to important truths. (Not hard, I grant you, but let’s not go there. Sufficient unto the day and all that.)
Pending getting my hands on the interview itself, here’s Tucker in Moscow with a 4:29 teaser on why he’s there.
* * *
- I just read that it will be up later today on his website, subscribers only. I’m always up for triangulating, including voices on the alt-right if they have something to say and evidence to back it, but I do draw the line at parting with my hard-earned for the privilege. It’ll leak soon enough onto social media – get your wallets out for Ursula, ElonZucker!
Hi Phil. Have already reblogged Scott Ritter’s take on his blog “Tucker Carlson is good for America” I was hoping to get access to this monumental (apparently, given the legacy media’s silly attacks) event.
Liked the mention of that rather stupid but cunningly evil creature der Leyen. How anyone could be as insulting to the lower earthlings intelligence really rankles me. On her speech I made my own comment that the queen of misinformation/disinformation is denouncing what she herself is guilty of (I’ve heard this too many times to count regarding the worst throwing muck at the best) but it is necessary to keep advising people that this is the way we “do” diplomacy these days.
I was wondering how I could get a copy of the interview because the west is so censored and it is quite possible YouTube will not allow it to be aired, so hoping you can get a copy!
Regards,
Susan
On your last point, Susan, I still have mainstream browsers like IE and Chrome, and search engines like Google, but fall back increasingly on the Tor browser with Duck Duck Go. It’s the only way to access RT, which I hope will host the interview.
Hi Phil
Just realised that another blogger I follow, Dr. Stuart Bramhall(The Most Revolutionary Act blog) who often has access to banned/censored content(like RT) so fingers crossed she can access the video. Will keep a look out for it.
Susan 🙂
Thanks Susan
Which, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows, in the post-modernist ‘woke’ mindset where an allegation is equal to an automatic guilty verdict with no need to go through the outdated process of evidence testing, innocent until proven guilty etc, is a slam dunk.
Meanwhile, back in the objective real world Herr Paet and his ilk do not, as we say round these parts, have a leg to stand on. Here’s the ICJ within the last week as reported in the Blog of the European Journal of International Law……
Bottom line: Despite the fantasy reporting of what passes for media in the Collective West, Ukraine – along with its Western elites sponsors – got their collective arses handed to them legally by the iCJ. Just like they have had their collective arses handed to them militarily.
And it gets worse for the sorry collection of Peter Pan’s and assorted Rupert’s which make up the elite of the Collective West, along with their enforcers and their cheerleaders, who are clearly [and with a great deal of justification] rapidly moving into panic more about maintaining physical connection between head and body in the not too distant future.
Because, hot on the heels of the recent ICJ case brought by South Africa against the apartheid Zionist regime in Israel the South African’s, along with the Nicaraguans, are bringing another case to the ICJ …
… against the USA and the UK for their complicity in the Gaza genocide.
Moreover:
I’ll get the popcorn out.*
*but only because I don’t know how to knit.
That’s a corker! Wish I’d come up with it.
Thanks too for those three paragraphs from the EJIL.
Hey Dave,
make mine with salt please, none of this sugar for me!
Great reply by the way.
Stay well.
Cheers
Billy
In Carlson’s excellent trailer for the interview (which you shared at the bottom of your post), he clearly states that ANYONE can watch it for FREE, either via his own website or via X, as he has an undertaking from Elon Musk that it will be allowed on there.
So I’m not sure why the confusion / scepticism in the note / comments above has arisen, as to where to find it, or the alleged need to pay for it?
I hope I’m wrong – I’ve been getting conflicting info. At time of writing it’s not up on his site but I’ll keep returning. It is promised today and if I see it, I’ll link to it in a dedicated post.
I think it’s promised for 1800 Eastern Time in the US, so I’m expecting it aroubd 11pm here.
I’ve just asked Mr Paet via Instagram how explains the absence of George Bush from appearing before the ICC in connection with his activities in Iraq. If I get any relevant reply I’ll let you all know.
Don’t hold your breath, Jams. His ilk don’t do rational debate.
Yes – as expected, no engagement. Possibly for his peace of mind(?) he only speaks to Ursula.
Apropos my exchanges with Susan and Steve, above, I have this morning posted a link to the interview in its entirety.
” Whatever happened to countering bad ideas with good arguments? And for that matter with derision?”
This is worthy of a whole discussion in itself. There are a number of problems with this approach.
1. It explicitly accepts the ‘bad’ idea as worthy of discussion,
2. It implicitly accepts the bad idea as having equal merit
3. It often requires a long and exhaustive explanation, setting the context which is out of all proportion to the value or effect of the counter argument
4. Simple, appealing, but wrong ideas may be much more attractive and so outweigh complex, disturbing, right ones.
5. People tend to believe what they want to believe, and so dismiss good arguments without really considering them
6. Derision is a two way street. Often it is easier to mock a good, but complex and perhaps unintuitive idea, than a bad one.
7. Vested interests may prefer an idea that justifies them regardless of how truthful it is. In which case the resources behind one idea may push it regardless of its merit.
8. Everything tends to be a mixture of good and bad, so unpicking the bad bits while promoting the good can be a fiendishly difficult task.
As for using derision as an approach to undermining bad ideas, derision and name calling can be stress relieving, but they undermine the arguer in the long term. Worse, they undermine the whole concept of discussion and argument in its true sense. There is a tendency to confuse insult exchange with argument. We see that here sometimes. It’s easy to just throw around a label, e.g. ‘woke’ as some catch-all term for people we despise / disagree with, without ever defining what this means, or justifying it. Then there is the question why ‘our’ categorising of people is OK but when others use the same tactic, it’s unacceptable. So “useful idiot” or “kremlin stooge” are evidence of absence (of argument) while “woke” is conclusive (but of what)?
Misinformation is a label we apply to ideas that we consider bad – usually because they are misleading, inaccurate or just plain false. We see misinformation as dangerous, and damaging to discourse, but by arguing against it we can give it credibility, and/or embed it further.
I think you are against misinformation, indeed, that’s the key driver for this blog. But you have a very different view of what constitutes misinformation from Von Der Leyen. But in some ways you have a common cause, as the source of information for much of society is controlled by a mixture of those who seek to perpetuate the status quo, and those who are using the access to information they control to enrich themselves and maintain their influence, but are happy for any type of information to flow. They are agnostic to content, so long as people click and the advertisers pay them. These people are not answerable to anyone but themselves, not even in the vague way that our shell of a democracy offers. That is hugely dangerous. It is also divisive and polarising, because that is what the algorithms favour. It adds to the existing polarising tendencies and accentuates them.
.
Not for the first time I see a small aspect of a steel city post picked apart with armchair pedantry. I allow such comments because they are polite. I won’t always respond though.
“If you start with imaginary assumptions, you’ll get imaginary results.”
– Larry Johnson: https://sonar21.com/bad-assumptions-bad-results-by-helmholtz-smith/
Credit where it is due for the Zen of using as an example to highlight a line of argument the very notion being argued against:
“There is a tendency to confuse insult exchange with argument. We see that here sometimes. It’s easy to just throw around a label, e.g. ‘woke’ as some catch-all term for people we despise / disagree with, without ever defining what this means, or justifying it.”
Coincidentally, this piece from the Intercept dropped into my inbox this morning which, like Larry Johnson’s quote above, highlights the same problematic issue of making assumptions about the usage of particular words…….
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/08/facebook-instagram-censor-zionist-israel/?
……and their imagined intent.
As Cardinal Richelieu noted…….
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00008828
……”If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
Point being that assuming and assigning specific intent in the usage of particular words and terms – ‘Zionist’; ‘Woke’ – is itself an example of “confuse[ing] insult exchange with argument.”
Firstly because the assumption that the use of a particular word has the intent of insult (or worse in the case of the Intercept example) is itself a choice of defining the word and its usage in any particular context as an “insult.” As the intercept piece on the usage of the word ‘Zionist’ implies, the usage is in the eye the beholder.
Secondly, in terms of the specific example used – ‘woke’ – there is no criteria offered by which to determine a definition of a term which has more than most words/terms rapidly evolved, and continues to rapidly evolve, way beyond its original meaning and intent. Simply because, as pointed out above, to reinforce the line of argument the definition has already been determined in the argument presented as being an “insult”.
The usage of such words is as much in the hands of the receivers (Rx) as it is the transmitters (Tx). And yes (no shit Sherlock) the Rx are just as capable as the Tx of kicking the arse of something.
Are they not!
Good points all. I especially like the Richelieu quote.
I wasn’t trying to pick apart your comment, but to initiate a discussion on what seems to me an interesting topic, i.e. the contest of ideas. One approach is to try to counter the ones we consider ‘bad’. The points were just ones I came up with as possible issues with this approach, not a definitive list. Thanks for engaging with them and responding.
My point about the bad ideas being pushed by vested interests is that there is a massive asymmetry in resources for those trying to counteract the idea, so choosing which ideas to focus on becomes necessary. A lot of time and effort can be expended to little effect. This brings us round to another approach, might it be better to concentrate on pushing your own ‘good’ ideas rather than countering their ‘bad’ ones?
These are just starter questions, and I don’t have a fixed view on what the answer should be. I’m just interested in other people’s opinions on this.
As regards the comment on insults being in the eye of the beholder, that’s the nature of any communication. But it doesn’t mean that the ‘transmitter’ doesn’t have a particular intention in mind when choosing a word. What that is can often be gleaned from the context. In this case, the context in which ‘woke’ was used seemed to make the intent clear – that it was meant as a disparagement. If that wasn’t the intent then I have misread it and I apologise.
FWIW Zoltan I don’t see you as commenting in bad faith. It’s rare, but I have had on this site folk who fit that description. You do not. My spiky tone is exasperation at a clearly thoughtful man wandering into a war zone to invite, with owlish professorialism, the warriors to trade abstract generalities.