Wanted to comment on Robert’s view of Putin. First, “The Great Patriotic War” is how they refer to it in Russia. It’s like i ragged on you for calling it “The Civil War” instead of something more accruate, like the war of Northern aggression. Second, my view is that you have to see Putin as a product of the system, which he surely is. People’s view of what power Putin has and how he retains it is, in my view, overly simplistic. The system that surrounds him, is more powerful than he is — principally those connected with banking and finance. But other aspects as well. Being bred within the system, he has a sense (some totally accurate and some perhaps more believed than necessarily real) of what power lies in his hands, what power lies elsewhere, and what he can safely do. The perception of what is “safe” to do (how disobedient one can be and still survive) is different for someone bred within the system than for someone, such as Robert, whose view of this is quite vague and abstract. I believe that it is only Putin’s (mostly probably quite accurate) perceptions in this regard that has allowed him to remain in power for so long and do the things against the agenda that he *has* done. He hasn’t taken on big pHarma. He hasn’t really taken on the bankers. Do you think there is *one* (and only one) thing that he should do/have done, and you would be satisfied that he doesn’t do others? He’s looking at the total situation and i believe he has taken some risks… but not more than he deems wise. I don’t find any great mystery about Putin at this point. He *is* playing along with the “globalist” agenda, to a substantial degree. And i would *agree* with him that he doesn’t have a lot of choice… from his point of view — what he deems “thinkable”, as well as feasible. There are (“small”) things he can do but he can’t take on/go against the whole “globalist” agenda or he would not remain in “power” for very long. He is *not* an absolute dictator. That is my view. Sadly, he does not *have* the power you imagine that he has, i suppose, that would allow him to not only flaunt his disobedience, but actively move against the agenda. And i don’t think he “wants” to, because wanting to comes from a different mindset than that bred from within the system. He is probably and rightly, i think, ill-disposed to many aspects of the agenda. But what can he *really* do? It isn’t who he is to be a martyr for the cause, from your point of view.
One other comment… which i have heard no one make any mention of, regarding Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin… Did no one else notice the… “weird” (?) look on Carlson’s face? And this was not momentary… he mainted this demented, lunatic facial expression for tens of seconds (i didn’t time it). For me, this was the most interesting thing of all, given the otherwise pretty much boring content (i didn’t hear anything i hadn’t already heard before) of the interview itself.
Wanted to comment on Robert’s view of Putin. First, “The Great Patriotic War” is how they refer to it in Russia. It’s like i ragged on you for calling it “The Civil War” instead of something more accruate, like the war of Northern aggression. Second, my view is that you have to see Putin as a product of the system, which he surely is. People’s view of what power Putin has and how he retains it is, in my view, overly simplistic. The system that surrounds him, is more powerful than he is — principally those connected with banking and finance. But other aspects as well. Being bred within the system, he has a sense (some totally accurate and some perhaps more believed than necessarily real) of what power lies in his hands, what power lies elsewhere, and what he can safely do. The perception of what is “safe” to do (how disobedient one can be and still survive) is different for someone bred within the system than for someone, such as Robert, whose view of this is quite vague and abstract. I believe that it is only Putin’s (mostly probably quite accurate) perceptions in this regard that has allowed him to remain in power for so long and do the things against the agenda that he *has* done. He hasn’t taken on big pHarma. He hasn’t really taken on the bankers. Do you think there is *one* (and only one) thing that he should do/have done, and you would be satisfied that he doesn’t do others? He’s looking at the total situation and i believe he has taken some risks… but not more than he deems wise. I don’t find any great mystery about Putin at this point. He *is* playing along with the “globalist” agenda, to a substantial degree. And i would *agree* with him that he doesn’t have a lot of choice… from his point of view — what he deems “thinkable”, as well as feasible. There are (“small”) things he can do but he can’t take on/go against the whole “globalist” agenda or he would not remain in “power” for very long. He is *not* an absolute dictator. That is my view. Sadly, he does not *have* the power you imagine that he has, i suppose, that would allow him to not only flaunt his disobedience, but actively move against the agenda. And i don’t think he “wants” to, because wanting to comes from a different mindset than that bred from within the system. He is probably and rightly, i think, ill-disposed to many aspects of the agenda. But what can he *really* do? It isn’t who he is to be a martyr for the cause, from your point of view.
One other comment… which i have heard no one make any mention of, regarding Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin… Did no one else notice the… “weird” (?) look on Carlson’s face? And this was not momentary… he mainted this demented, lunatic facial expression for tens of seconds (i didn’t time it). For me, this was the most interesting thing of all, given the otherwise pretty much boring content (i didn’t hear anything i hadn’t already heard before) of the interview itself.
Love the opening medieval metal music opening the show. Name of piece? Artist?