The Interview that Changed the World (Or Not…)

            Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei.

            My friend, the enemy of my enemy.

            Who is the enemy of the American dream?

            Who is the enemy of human freedom, peace and prosperity on Earth?

When I was born, the enemy was said to be communism before the fall of the Soviet Union. When I was a kid, after 9/11, the enemy became terrorists in the middle east. When I was a teenager, the enemy became Russia again. Well into being an adult, after the covid pandemic, the enemy became China for one half of the country and, because of Donald Trump, the enemy became the American people for the other half of the country. Today, I question if the greatest enemy to the American dream has, at least for my lifetime, actually only been us ourselves.

The thought alone has me feeling intellectually demoralized the past few weeks. I’ve had a difficult time thinking, feeling, writing or doing anything. I will always love America, but the thought of us becoming the bad guy on the world stage is a heavy weight on my heart. I’ve always known there were elements of corruption within the United States, but I’ve never quite come to the feeling that I have now that America itself may be the bad guy who is backing the globalism that is ruining humanity. The people want prosperity, peace and freedom, but America today seems to have become a force for economic poverty, control and war under its current leadership. Is it faith or folly to still believe in the American dream?

They say there are no angels in war, but I believe there should be no war without angels. There has to be a good guy, a purpose, truth and a reason to fight. Looking at the modern world, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, that I do not believe we have fought a war worth fighting since the Korean War. Something happened within the United States over the past decades, but especially the past few decades of my lifetime, where I am slowly realizing that I can no longer say that we are the good guys. I’m not so sure that we have been the good guys for a long while, and this thought alone deeply saddens me. I still believe in God, but look around and question if we exist in hell right now. They say heaven and hell are a mindstate, and maybe that is true, but what does that even mean when the whole world seems corrupt? The UN is not the good guys. Russia is not the good guys. China is not the good guys. We are not the good guys.

When the whole world of every government of every country seems to be turning on their own people in every nation, when there are no good guys leading the way seemingly anywhere in the world right now, when common sense has been eaten by ideological corners, when war feels inevitable and love seems like a lie, what are we, the good people of Earth who only seek peace and prosperity, supposed to do?

The thought of Patrick Bet David’s new book Choose Your Enemies Wisely comes to mind. Even though I haven’t read it yet, the thought from the title alone may be a good place to start by assessing who our enemies actually are in the face of everything happening right now.

The enemy is communistic globalism. The enemy is corruption. The enemy is the tax. The enemy is poverty. The enemy is the poisons of modern medicine and food. The enemy is mental and physical weakness. The enemy is the woke mind virus. The enemy is ignorance, lies and censorship. The enemy is those who believe in depopulation. The enemy is World War 3.

How do we put an end to the madness of modern times with hope, understanding and reason? Is it possible to create change, make peace and get back to the business of the independence of nations? How do you stop globalism if it is not in service to the well being of the people on Earth? I think these thoughts and ask these questions, but I no longer have any grasp on what an answer could be. I may be a nobody, but I still like to think in terms of solutions. Today, I cannot seem to bring my spirit to any sensible conclusion. Even still, here is yet another seemingly worthless attempt to bring common sense order and understanding to a broken world, from the perspective of a nobody writer.

For whatever it is worth, I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around these thoughts as I spent all of the past 7 days trying to write out a reasonable response to the worldview changing interview that happened last week between Tucker Carlson and Vladamir Putin. I stopped doing my daily show on X just to sit and process the information, with the understanding that I couldn’t really speak again until I developed my ideas further on what I had just heard. The world mind changed with a simple conversation, and instead of changing course the current leadership doubled down for war on all sides. Ideas of peace around the world are spit upon as the wars of the world continue to spiral out of control.

Last Thursday, on the day of the Tucker interview and before it ever aired online, I came across another old interview back in 2003 between Dan Rather and Saddam Hussein before the US invasion of Iraq. After watching the interview, I couldn’t help myself from drawing potential similarities between the two talks. Much like Saddam Hussein, Putin spoke of his people, their history and a desire to make peace out of all the chaos. Instead of peace, we ended up seeing lies from our own government about weapons of mass destruction and terrorism which led to another pointless war that we should have never been involved in. We went to war under false pretenses and nobody was ever held accountable. Outside of Tucker Carlson himself, few are even willing to acknowledge the failures of the time. Looking at today, the cause of my current depression is knowing how the situation right now could be handled in exactly the same kind of way as the events that happened after Rather spoke with Saddam. Putin and Tucker spoke of peace and understanding, but the US, UN & EU have been setting everything up for another war and I am not sure if it is possible that we turn any of this around, regardless of any information or insight that we may have learned along the way leading up to this current moment in time.

Something cracks, war is unleashed, people die and the narrative marches itself into oblivion. The interview about potential peace and understanding becomes a memory of what could have been replaced by the horror of war, just like in Iraq. This is the worst case scenario.

The modern actions of globalism remind me of the ways of the communism of the Soviet Union. We were successful in defeating the Soviet Union without real war, but Russia is no longer the Soviet Union and the UN and the likes have become the new problem we all face like what the Soviet Union was. Is it possible that common sense understanding can cause globalism to fail without war, just like what happened during the fall of the Soviet Union? Can communistic globalism peacefully fail like the Soviet Union? Is America First and the independence of nations rationally possible?

I’m not so sure. It’s more probable that this situation with the Tucker Putin interview ends up like the Rather Hussein interview, but I still believe it is possible that this situation finds an outcome of peace instead of World War 3.

Right now congress is trying to pass a bill to fund more war for Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel. Nothing for our country, nothing for our people here. Nothing for peace or prosperity, just more money for more war, division, manipulation and self destruction. At the same time, another peace deal between Russia and Ukraine has been rejected. Same with Israel and Palestine. And what about China and Taiwan? Or any of the smaller disputes happening today on the world stage? Again, I find myself going back to the same old question I ask myself, is peace even possible?

If peace is not possible, what is war if there are no good guys? How can anyone expect anyone to want to fight any of these battles that are being set up before us? Isn’t the connectivity of the internet enough to make war everywhere seem stupid? You would think so, but obviously it still is not.

With the thought of the independence of nations, I’ve been racking my brain trying to think of how any communist nation should be handled from an America First perspective. If a nation chooses to be communist, and they keep to themselves and take care of their own people, then let that country be communist. America can never become communist, but that is an understanding we must keep here and work to make true ourselves in order to keep our freedoms under the constitution of our founding fathers and the foundation of our free market capitalism. We shall lead by example to inspire other nations to seek to become the same. The people will want their freedom and want their internet, in time, and  I am saying this as a solution towards avoiding World War 3. The only peace that can exist is if countries leave their neighbors to their own will, to let their own people sort out their own ways of life without force, corruption or manipulation. The only peace that can exist is if countries around the world have functioning economies, and the only way that happens is if we all just get back to business. We all have business to take care of and all the people everywhere would rather focus on that than see war anywhere. I believe in the indepence of nations. I believe this is possible. I believe this is the way of a new world order of the people, by the people and for the people, for the future, with technology, with family, faith, freedom and a mentality of unstoppable growth.

The enemy of the independence of nations is communistic globalism. A simple solution would be to defund the UN, WHO, WTO, NATO, IMF and all of the likes. Then defund all of the forces within the United States who have been funding these organizations with the goals of depopulation, censorship and control. Let every nation keep their culture, their government, their border and their economic way. Let trade be as free between countries as a free market allows them to be, sales or not. Bring all military forces back to their home state and get back to the business of each nation taking care of their own people rather than sending them off to die in wars that no one actually wants.

So with all of these thoughts in mind, is it worth going to war with Russia? I was always confused by our continual efforts to make war with Russia, but I’ve always been against communism so I assumed that was the baseline understanding for these endeavors. After seeing that interview on Tucker, I’m not even sure that Russia is a communist state like the Soviet Union was and I am not sure that they should have ever been made an enemy of the American people like they are now. What is Christian communism? It sounds like they are against globalism, more so than China who benefits from communistic globalism, and it honestly feels like the greatest mistake of the new century for America to have helped push Russia further into the arms of China. With the rise of BRICS and the fall of the dollar, this mistake may be the end of the US economy as a powerhouse on the world stage as we know it. I still do not trust Putin and I still do not trust Russia, but I may trust them more than what I hear coming out of the World Economic Forum or our current White House leadership. After the Cold War, I never considered this thought to really be a possibility. After hearing this new interview, I keep going back to the thought of “my friend, the enemy of my enemy”. But even moreso, why do any of us even have to be enemies or friends? Can’t we all just take care of business again regardless of how we feel? It only makes sense to me, but in a world of emotion it is inevitable to see war continually break out again and again and again. I am not sure that it is possible that that will ever change.

With all of that said, and I know it is like mental word vomit at this point, but I’d like to go back to the original story at hand that inspired all of this here. I’d like to give a more in depth analysis and the deeper thoughts that I have surrounding the Tucker and Putin interview. What does this moment mean for modern times moving towards the future?

This is the interview that changed the world (or not…).

 Filmed February 6th of 2024, the interview between Tucker Carlson and Putin immediately started out with Tucker asking Putin why he chose to attack Ukraine and why he is concerned about the expansion of NATO to the border of Russia. In a somewhat comical, long winded explanation, Putin went on a 30 minute long school like lesson on the shared history of Russia and Ukraine. Tucker seemed annoyed by the talk down, and my first impression from the beginning of the interview was that this whole thing was going to be a pointless propaganda piece like a Russian war commercial. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, but I’m not a “Putin apologist” and was initially only interested in the discussion due to the potential for peace that it could bring for what I consider to be a pointless war. I just want to see a stop to the hundreds of thousands of people who have died during this war, and his opening explanation of a history lesson was honestly somewhat offensive to me at first as it all seemed like no excuse for the deaths of so many people. After the interview, looking back, I can somewhat understand why Putin opened with this explanation. I do still find it a bit lame and silly, and I do still enjoy the plethora of memes making fun of his history lesson, but I also have found that I understand this explanation as it all amounts to saying that Ukraine and Russia have a long shared Christian history from before the time of the Bolshevik Revolution or the communist takeover that created the Soviet Union.

As I started to understand where he was going through this long explanation, for the first time I had the thought of questioning if Russia is still a communist nation. I’m entirely against the idea of communism, but in my own ignorance I have always assumed that Russia was just a smaller failed version of the Soviet Union that was still a communist nation. I had never thought about what Russia was before the communist revolution or how the people of Russia may themselves be against the past century of communism that ultimately failed. Is modern Russia actually against the communistic empire of old?

Even Tucker, halfway through his explanation, questioned how any of this is relevant to the modern situation with Ukraine. It took a while for the point to come full circle, but in a way he was explaining exactly why now is happening the way that it is. Even still, with all of that, if Ukraine wants to keep its independence from Russia it should be able to do so. I understand that they have a shared history, but that is no excuse for invading a country and slaughtering a population. Under the independence of nations, both Ukraine and Russia should be able to run their own governments as they see fit and please.

That’s when the Bolsheviks came up. For the first time, again, I realized that Putin himself may be against the history of the Soviet Union. I thought to myself, is Putin merely trying to restore the former Christian order of Russia before the time of the Soviet Union? Does he see the Soviet Union communism as a failed history for his people? If that is the case, what is actually wrong with that? Frankly, I personally consider that a good thing for a nation to get back to a somewhat religious order over the idea of communist control. I believe in the freedom of religion, but if a nation chooses a specific religion to follow based on historical culture, I find nothing wrong with that either. Still, with the explanation, Tucker was not impressed with what seemed like a distractive explanation.

“It’s not boring… I’m just not sure how it is relevant”, Tucker said to Putin as Putin began explaining the history of how Poland worked with Hitler to stand against Russia. He spoke of German control of lands during World War 2, how Ukraine was brought under the Soviet Union before Hitler and how the nazis made their way into Ukraine leading up to what we see today with nazi forces working within the Ukrainian military. This seems to be Putin’s actual central concern with Ukraine in its current state. Is this all it is? Is Putin going to war with Ukraine to eliminate the nazis from the region? If that is actually the case, I struggle to see why that is a bad thing, outside the fact that all war is awful. Why is the US so obsessed with sending mass funding to Ukraine to support their side of the war? Is the entirety of the UN’s offensive stance towards Russia only to stop it from restoring its historical roots as a Christian power? How does the modern West consider that a bad thing? Isn’t it a good thing for any country to restore its connection with God under any religion? Remember that during the communist Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, tens of millions of Russian Christians were slaughtered during a Christian holocaust that helped create Russian communism and the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, which Putin considers to be initiated by Russian leadership. Why did Russian leadership decide to let the Soviet Union fall apart unless they themselves saw it as a failed overreach of expansionist power? He says that Russia was expecting to be welcomed into the Western order by their dismantling of the Soviet Union, with the aim of establishing a unified system between the US, Europe and Russia. The idea was to bring peace between Russia and the US after the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, with the understanding that the UN and NATO would never extend its forces to the Russian border. Of course, none of that is what happened.

Apparently both Bill Clinton and George Bush spoke to Putin about creating a security alliance, but both times the will of Presidents was negated by some mysterious force of intelligence within the United States. Both of them also spoke about Russia joining NATO, only to reach the same conclusion. What does this mean for the United States? What does it mean when the will of an elected President is meaningless in the face of deep state desire? It’s a wild thought stream to follow when considering what the world would look like if we had actually built that alliance between the US, Europe and Russia. We would be existing in a completely different world than we see today. I can’t help but imagine it would be more peaceful. I also can’t help but imagine that China wouldn’t be the threat that it is today if we had gone down that road, but the past is left to the past and we can only look back to the moment and towards the future from here.

We promised Russia that NATO wouldn’t expand to the East if Russia dismantled the Soviet Union. That original agreement was discarded through 5 waves of expansion, leading up to opening the doors for Ukraine to join in 2008, followed by what is believed to be a coup supported by the US in 2014. Ukraine persecuted everyone who considered it a coup and launched a war over Crimea, or the beginning of the war that we see today. Crimea was the red line for Russia. Regardless, Zelensky won the election, going from a Ukrainian comedian to a war hero in the eyes of the mainstream western media. The Minsk agreements were signed for peace, but were ultimately disregarded and discarded for more war. If the problem is Ukrainian nationalism, can Russia still accept that for peace? If the problem for Ukraine with Russia is Christianity and land, can Ukraine accept Russian nationalism and Russia keeping Crimea for peace? Should they?

The American media teaches us that Putin has the desire to restore the Soviet Union, but the more I learn the more I feel like that assessment is false. He says plainly that he would never attack any country unless they attacked him first. The truth is that we here ourselves, and those driven by communistic globalism, are the ones who started this war. It has been going on since 2014, and too many in our modern American leadership are thirsty for more money and weapons to fight out this pointless proxy war. Putin says that he hasn’t spoken to Biden since before the war. That’s years without communication. Is anything productive actually being done here?

Too much of American politics has become too stupid to comprehend. Chuck Schumer is out there talking about putting American boots on the ground if the US does not approve of more money to Ukraine. The thought alone is an absolutely ridiculous assessment of what is necessary. I do not want to see a single American soldier fight in Ukraine or any of these other random wars around the world. Putin is right here by saying, “don’t you have anything better to do”? The debt. The border. Censorship. Corruption. We have so many problems here at home and I believe the silent majority of Americans just want to see us take care of our own issues here. If that’s the case, how do so many of our politicians in modern times retain power to force us in the opposite direction? I also agree with Putin that it goes against common sense to be involved in a global war, bringing humanity to the brink of destruction, all in the name of extorting more tax money from the American population and weakening both the United States and Russia in the process. From this perspective, all of our recent actions in foreign policy are an indefensible horror show.

For a moment of dark humor from the weight of the conversation, the funniest moment of the interview was when Tucker asked Putin who blew up the Nordstream pipeline. Putin responds with “You for sure”, suggesting that it was the fault of the United States or our allies. Tucker responds with a laugh saying, “I was busy that day… Thank you though”. Obviously, Tucker had nothing to do with it, but Putin then makes a joke about Tucker having an alibi here, but how the CIA has no such thing. Was the greatest act of industrial terrorism directed by the will of our current leadership in the United States? As much as we like to talk about climate change, did we cause the greatest amount of damage to the environment in modern times? The German economy is failing, would it still be great if the pipeline was never destroyed? Putin ends this discussion with the thought of “If you want to make money, let us live in peace”.

They both see the world as breaking into two hemispheres – one with cheap energy and one without. Putin compares the whole world to the two hemispheres of the human brain, comparing war to a mental health disease and comparing journalists like Tucker to the work of doctors healing the mind with truth, intelligence and storytelling. I somewhat agree with that assessment, but my own central focus is the ideas of freedom against censorship and control. If that is what we are trying to heal in the mind of modern times, I can agree with that. If not, and we are only talking about healing the mind of modern times by an expansion of control, I will forever refuse. Still, the idea of a global mind is interesting. Can a global mind serve the freedom and prosperity of the individual, or can any thoughts of a global mind only be dictated by censorship, control and conformity of the collective?

Putin then goes on to talk with Tucker about BRICS and the power of the US dollar. He believes that as soon as the dollar became a political tool that it was destined for problems. The dollar is the cornerstone of American power, but by using it as a political force instead of an economic force causes nations around the globe to lose confidence in the capability of the dollar remaining the most worthwhile tool for global exchange. Before the war, US dollars made up 50% of Russian trade, but now has fallen down to only 13% after the sanctions and trade restrictions. Russia was only trading 3% in Chinese yuan before the war, now it accounts for 34%. Has pushing Russia into the economic arms of China the greatest failure of American foreign policy in modern times? I refuse to believe that the United States should give in to the flows of communistic globalism, so I have to believe that there is an alternative route we could take towards seeing a better future.

Tucker then asked what I personally consider to be the most important question of the night, where he asked Putin if Russia was concerned with China becoming THE economic superpower with BRICS leadership. Putin spoke in a circle around the subject, but his bringing up how the US forced Russia to stop working with the dollar shows that the thought has crossed his mind. Would Putin rather continue business with the United States over China? No matter the case, Putin still shares a border with China and shares a history of coexistence. Collaboration will continue, but obviously it depends on our own actions how much that is to be so. Does he share the same concern as some of us do here in the United States? He even brought up how he sees himself that the UN and EU are working with China even more than Russia is working with China. Putin says we are killing the dollar with our own hands. BRICS countries already share greater power than the G7 economies. If any of this is so, why are we doing this? They say the US dollar is only backed by the US military. Is this a good thing? Is it enough? Is this the way it should be?

Can another leader change what is happening? Putin doesn’t believe so. In his view, as long as domination by any costs exists nothing will change and things will only get worse. We set sanctions, kicked Russia out of the SWIFT system and expected their economy to collapse. Now they’ve surpassed all of Europe with economic power. Russia is making profits regardless of restrictions and seemingly suggests that the only hope for the future is if the United States gives in to the flow of communistic globalism. I think this is a mistake of thought for Putin when it comes to China, just as I believe this is a mistake for the United States when it comes to the United Nations.

Tucker asks Putin who he thinks makes the decisions in the United States? Putin says simply, “I don’t know”. Obviously, neither does Tucker. 

Putin then goes on to describe Zelensky’s path to power in Ukraine. Zelensky won the elections under the idea of bringing peace, but ended up directing war as a Jewish man fighting a war with Russia alongside Nazi factions. Are the two of them still capable of communicating for peace talks? Putin thinks so, even after the peace treaty signed from both sides in Istanbul was eliminated by the call for war by Borris Johnson from the UK. He convinced Zelensky it was better to continue fighting Russia and that the West would continue to give money, weapons and intelligence support. Putin says he wants peace, but questions if Zelensky actually wants the same.

Why is all of this happening? According to Putin, he says “Who the hell knows. I don’t understand it myself”. Is this about the independence of Ukraine? Is this about destroying Russian energy for climate change? Is this about the United States and Russia destroying each other so the UN and China can pick up all the pieces for communistic globalism?

Putin then goes on to explain how Russia has become a Christian country that supports all who choose to believe in God. To Putin, it doesn’t matter if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Is this, outside of merely just a Russian perspective, the way that all who believe in God should be viewing the world? What about the Russian alliance with China while China actively is banning all religion in favor of those who support the state? Isn’t communism the opposite of religious freedom? With that understanding, how can Russia accept working with China? Is it only the fact that they are neighbors? Is it only the fact that we have economically forced them to do so?

Tucker then asks Putin how he can be considered a Christian leader when his war has killed so many people. What about turning the other cheek or thou shalt not kill? Despite history, war isn’t supposed to be a Christian ideology. Putin understands this, but rationalized his own actions by saying that he has to protect his own people and his homeland, saying that he will never attack anyone first. Still, he is currently attacking Ukraine but he also believes that Russia did not start this war and that all of the current efforts are in an effort to bring this war to an end. Maybe he is right, or maybe all of that is just another bullshit excuse. Tucker asks if he sees God at work within all that is happening today and Putin’s only response is that the development of the world community is in adherence to natural law. Here, some nations rise and some nations fall. He compares the United States to the Roman Empire, saying the difference now will be between the speed of the collapse as everything today has become accelerated. This is a common argument, but I see the potential of the future being in 3 realms. Some seek a restoration of the Roman Empire driven by the United States, some seek communistic globalism driven by China and the UN, and the rest of us, the people, seek the independence of nations where people and states are free to be as individuals. I do not want to see America as a repeating Roman Empire collapse nor do I want to see America sell itself out to pay for communistic globalism. I want to see America be America, based on our constitution and the rights of man, and I believe that it is entirely possible that, under that idea, the future of our potential is only just beginning. 

Shifting gears, Tucker then asks Putin, “So when will the Ai empire start”? Putin laughs at the thought and continues to speak about the threats of genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and the capability of creating “superhumans”. Putin says there is “no stopping Elon Musk” and continues to laugh at the thoughts. Putin seems to want some kind of global understanding, restrictions and regulations on all of this technology, but that is never going to happen across the board. These new technological capabilities have become the new arms race, much like nukes were after World War 2, and I don’t believe that is ever going to stop. Honestly, from an American perspective, I hope we continue to create the best technology on Earth and keep the responsibility of tending to those capabilities. It may seem like a laughing matter in the moment between the two, but the reality is that it is of the most importance and I believe that, if we don’t self destruct by our own stupidity here, we in the United States will continue to keep the edge over the competition here. I believe this would be a good thing.

To close out the interview, Tucker brought up Evan Gershkovich, an American journalist currently imprisoned in Russia. Tucker asked Putin to release him as a sign of decency, but Putin refused. Even still, Tucker did a great thing by remembering to try to free the American prisoner and even Putin continued to say that he thought it was possible that he could be freed to go back to his family in the future. A great sign for the potential for peace, understanding and collaboration to see all of this war come to an end.

As a final question, Tucker asked Putin if he was worried that the war between Russia and Ukraine could spiral into something much worse. Here, Putin calls Ukraine a satellite state of the UN and US. If that is so, should Putin be speaking directly to Joe Biden instead of peace talks with Zelensky? Putin assumes Biden doesn’t want to negotiate, saying instead that the US has all of the power. If we stop giving money and weapons to Ukraine, the war will quickly come to an end. On the confusion between nations over war, Putin says, “It would be funny if it weren’t so sad”. 

And that was the end of the interview that changed the world.

Or not…

After the interview, Tucker Carlson posted a video sharing 5 key thoughts that he took away from their discussion. He concluded that Putin feels rejected by the West after decades of attempts for collaboration, Putin doesn’t seem to desire to continue expansion across Europe, it is likely that Putin wants peace with Ukraine, Putin will not give up Crimea and Tucker finished with the thought that we here in the United States have a “bad track record” of forcing regime change in other countries.

Here Tucker points out that, “What happened in Libya when we deposed and allowed, you know, Qaddafi to be murdered? What happened in Iraq when we brought Saddam to justice? Those countries fell apart, and they’ve never been rebuilt again. In Afghanistan, we took out the central government and they came back. It’s still run by the Taliban. So our track record of knocking out the leader, which isn’t very easy to do, is spotty at best. Things don’t always get better. And to do that to Russia, the largest landmass in the world with the largest nuclear arsenal, you’re on drugs if you think that’s a good idea”.

In the week after the interview initially aired, the conflicting narratives continue to do everything in their power to tear the idea of peace apart. Russia continues to bomb Ukraine and Ukraine continues to attack Russia. Just the other day a Russian ship was destroyed by a Ukrainian drone strike, killing 50 people. Hundreds of thousands have died, but no one really seems to care to stop it. Ukraine is raiding churches, banning opposition, stealing our money, selling our weapons, forcefully drafting its citizens into war and supporting nazis. Zelensky in Ukraine is not the good guy, and neither is Putin in Russia. Another peace deal was denied between Russia and Ukraine, just as Russia banned its anti war opposition candidate from running for President in the upcoming election. Ukraine has already done the same, banning elections until the war is over. Both Ukraine and Russia are far from “democratic” nations running free elections. The same could be said here in the United States today as the Biden administration actively allows election interference by all of their actions against Donald Trump. Even still, Putin himself has come out in another interview claiming that Biden remaining president would be better for Russia than Donald Trump. So much for “a vote for Trump is a vote for Putin”. Putin even called Tucker “dangerous” for the way that he conducted the interview, giving Putin the space to potentially speak too much, but Putin also said how it was sad to see the way the US media was demonizing Tucker Carlson for being open to speaking with Putin to share information with the people of Earth.

Now American media have unleashed a new story claiming that Russia has space nukes that can knock out all of our satellite infrastructure. Maybe so, but I could honestly see us here already having the same capability. Who knows what weapons any country actually has, especially ourselves. Still, I can’t help but also feel like this entire new story about space nukes sounds exactly like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Again, I am reminded of the interview between Dan Rather and Saddam Hussein. I do not know what to do with this thought other than just hope for the best.

I’ve been worried about Tucker Carlson’s safety after the interview, but it is seemingly so far so good since the interview and nothing bad has happened to him for his decision to share their discussion. Some democrats are calling for Tucker to be charged with the Espionage Act for talking to Putin, but hopefully nothing like that happens to an American citizen for simply speaking freely for the future of the country that he loves. He did share a few short videos of how public transportation in Russia is more clean than in America and how groceries are cheaper at the store in Russia than in America. Both are a shame to see, but I know Tucker is only bringing this up because it breaks his heart that we do not see the same sorts of things happening in America for our own people. Regardless of all of that, I am thankful to see that as the case and hope nothing but good comes to Tucker and his family for taking that monumental risk just to share information with the people of America, Russia and Earth.

After leaving Russia, the first stop Tucker made was joining the World Government Summit in Dubai to share his thoughts on the interview that had just been released. Here he spoke to the assembly about      why he interviewed Putin, stating that all of these efforts were because of how it matters for the future of peace on our planet. Tucker shared his love for America and the idea of freedom, comparing the United States to a family, like a father, who sees two of his kids fighting. First thing you would sensibly do is try to stop the fight, but what if the father was encouraging the fighting? Tucker says the most basic duty of fatherhood is to bring peace to the family and any leader abetting war for its own sake should be considered illegitimate leadership. Tucker goes on to divide the world into two frames of thought, those who think they are God and those who know they are not. We should all know that we are not God, and we should all be working towards being like the father who brings peace to the human family.

So, with all of these thoughts here, what should we be doing as we move forward into the uncertainty of the coming future?

If you ask me, the solution is reestablishing a truly free market global economy. Rebuild and open the pipelines, open lines of communication, keep the freedom of speech and thought, drop the sanctions, stop paying for endless war, bring our troops back home, create an American fortress, close our border and focus on taking care of our own people rather than attempting to manipulate the planet to serve the will of communistic globalism. Create a two state solution for Russia and Ukraine where Russia keeps Crimea and Ukraine keeps itself. Every nation gets back to business and every nation stops all of this nonsense war. Again, this is improbable, but it is still entirely possible. Despite all evidence otherwise, I still believe that peace is possible.

On a final note, to conclude this mental mess of an article, I watched the 1956 version of the movie War and Peace. I had never seen it before and I have not yet read the book, but I thought of the movie and figured it was an opportune time for understanding historical perspectives. In the past few weeks I’ve spent a great deal of time watching movies from the past century about Napoleon and have been reading The Age of Napoleon by Will and Ariel Durant. I figured watching a movie from a Russian perspective, as War and Peace is from a Russian book written by Leo Tolstoy about the wars of the time, would be worthwhile as I brooded over what I was going to write in this article. It ended up being a beautiful film and I imagine it is one of the most beautiful books to read as well, but it only left me with a feeling that the cycles of war and peace are inevitable merely based on the nature of humanity. War has always been the play of the elite, and the poor are always sacrificed for the sake of the game.

Should I sit back with my mind and merely watch the show with a pen and paper, following the thought stream of the character Pierre Bezukhov, who said “I want to discover everything! I want to discover why I know what’s right and still do what’s wrong. I want to discover what happiness is, and what value there is in suffering. I want to discover why men go to war, and what they really say deep in their hearts when they pray. I want to discover what men and women feel when they say they love”.

Or should I feel like the character Napoleon, looking at America with the thought, “I warn you, gentlemen. I cannot sit here much longer watching my army decay!”.

Or should I feel like the character General Kutuzov, who says to himself of wars, “Time and patience. Patience and time”.

Or maybe I should think of America like the thoughts of the character Natasha Rostov towards Pierre when she says, “You’re like this house. You suffer, you show your wounds, but you stand”.

Or maybe we should all just be looking at life like, spoiler alert, the closing title of the film which reads, “The most difficult thing – but an essential one – is to love life. To love it even while one suffers, because life is all, life is God, and to love life means to love God”.

Candace Owens made a great point recently, that in the history of good and evil both sides always end up wrong. Every individual is composed of both good and evil, just like every cause and every reason for every war ever fought. The result is always death and destruction and the only truth that is found is in the balance of understanding.

Can the Tucker and Putin interview inspire the world to better communication towards peace, or will the interview be a precursor to war like the Dan Rather and Saddam Hussein interview of the past?

I do not know. 

Putin in Russia is not the good guy. He is not our friend. Zelensky in Ukraine is not the good guy. He is not our friend. Xi in China is not the good guy. He is not our friend.  Biden in the United States is not the good guy. He is not our friend. Klaus Schwab at the WEF is not the good guy. He is not our friend. So who is the good guy? Who is our friend?

Is Donald Trump the good guy? Maybe. For whatever it is worth, he is the only one of any of them that I would want to be my friend. If the election of 2020 wasn’t most likely stolen by communistic globalism, I still believe war between Russia and Ukraine would have never happened.

Hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today.

            Once again, Trump 2024 seems to me to be the best case scenario here.

            My friend, the enemy of my enemy.

            Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei.