“I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention, due to the fact that literally everyone in the world is talking about it, that journalist Tucker Carlson has recently interviewed Russian president, Vladimir Putin.
This interview has been publicised by every prominent mainstream news vehicle in the world. The BBC. The New York Times. The Guardian. All of them. And not just a brief paragraph in the back pages, but reams and reams of detailed headline coverage.
For those temped to object, “but they’re not publicising it, they’re being mean about it!” – please let us be very emphatically clear that ‘being nice’ about something is not the definition of ‘publicising’ it. The official dictionary definition of ‘publicity’ is: “notice or attention given to someone or something by the media.”
There is nothing in that definition requiring the notice or attention to be good, hence the well-worn phrase, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity“.
There really isn’t, and as such, if mainstream media journalists don’t want you to know about something (or someone), then they simply ignore it. They don’t write mean editorials about it, they don’t forensically analyse and attack it, they don’t accuse it of criminal activity…
They ignore it.
If, conversely, they draw attention to something (or someone) then – no matter how “mean” they purport to be – it’s because they want you to know about it.
And there are never (ever) any exceptions to this rule.
Hence, since the performative drama of his being “fired from Fox News“, Tucker Carlson’s career has gone from strength to strength, because the mainstream media continues to give him such extensive publicity, and, in so doing, has conspired to make his Putin interviews one of the most viewed videos of all time.
It’s the same phenomenon as the stratospheric rise of Russell Brand, whose “demonetising from YouTube” stunt has made him richer than ever, because the MSM obligingly told everyone that this had happened to him, and where they could alternatively financially support the poor multi-millionaire instead.
If we’re going to have any hope of immunising ourselves against the endless psy-ops and manipulations the mainstream relentlessly throws at us, we have to be ineffably clear on two incontrovertible facts, that underpin everything the establishment does when managing the masses:
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves,” and;
“When the people want a hero, we shall supply him.”
The establishment knows, of course, that there’s a dissident class that doesn’t unquestioningly swallow the mainstream narrative, and so, said establishment is not simply going to leave that rebellious faction to it, to organise and fight back with no obstacles or infiltration. Obviously, the moneyed monolith that constitutes our ruling class is going to target and infiltrate any group of people who oppose them, and make every attempt to lead, manage, and control this dissident class, by manufacturing fake opposition and making them highly visible (giving them a lot of publicity).
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in many corners of the “truth movement” regarding what controlled opposition actually is, and as I have heard so many times,
“Well, so-and-so can’t be controlled opposition, because they’re saying loads of stuff I agree with.”
Yes. Of course they are. They wouldn’t be credible “opposition” if they didn’t say things the opposition class agrees with. Pied Pipers don’t get any followers if they don’t play an appealing tune.
The point, when determining whether they’re genuine opposition or controlled, is: are they being suppressed or publicised by the establishment they claim to oppose?
Every genuine dissident is suppressed – never permitted to build very large social media followings (certainly never allowed to get into the millions, as the Brands, Tates, and Carlsons of the world do), and certainly never given any significant coverage in the mainstream establishment media.
Therefore, we can conclude: Tucker Carlson is classic controlled opposition (with the signature establishment, CIA background that so many of these guys seem to have), and that we were supposed to see his interview with Vladimir Putin. But not just see it: we were supposed to draw certain conclusions about it, as well.
We were supposed to determine that Putin is a much more admirable and trustworthy leader than any comparable figurehead in the West. We were supposed to feel anger and resentment towards our so-called “leaders” and their attempts to demonise Putin. We were certainly supposed to declare in outrage that Russia is not the enemy, and that we would never participate in fighting a war against them, were it to come to that.
Because the third (and final) world conflict is long-since planned and scripted, and the decadent, libertine West is intended to fall, whilst the ordered, conservative East rises.
That’s always been the plan, and the gradual unseaming of the West in the decades since World War II have all been building up to this.”
More here: https://miriaf.co.uk/hack-in-the-ussr/