Russell is joined by TUCKER CARLSON for a WORLD EXCLUSIVE first interview since leaving Fox News. NOTHING is off limits! Join them as they discuss Twitter, leaving Fox News, the future of alternative media, the truth behind Jan 6, Trump, RFK Jr and so much more!My comedy special 'Brandemic' is out now! Order your tickets at https://moment.co/russellbrandFor a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here: https://russellbrand.locals.com/Come to my festival COMMUNITY - https://www.russellbrand.com/community-2023/NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/Find out more about Tucker Carlson: TuckerCarlson.com
Thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
At the moment we're on YouTube but that will only be for the first 15 minutes before we are exclusively on the home of Free Speech Rumble and of course our free speech is the free speech to unify in the spirit of love, not free speech to speak hatefully of one another.
Of course the reason we're so excited today is because we are being joined for a world exclusive We have Tucker Carlson with us in studio, his first interview since leaving Fox News.
Thanks for joining us, Tucker Carlson.
As your friend and as someone who watches a lot of your videos, I'm amazed that I'm here.
This is prettier even.
I'm not going to give away critical details and jeopardize your safety, but this is, if people could see where you're broadcasting from.
I think it's beautiful.
And that's not an overstatement, I think it's beautiful.
Thank you so much because I think we have a beautiful intention here.
We're recognising that independent media and independent politics are beginning to coalesce.
It's becoming increasingly unlikely that you can report truthfully, honestly and in good faith Putting forward anti-establishment narratives without being attacked.
Of course, we're going to talk about a lot of subjects here, but primarily we're going to want to talk about the reasons for you leaving Fox.
We're going to want to talk about some of the reporting around Jan 6.
We're going to want to talk about the attacks that you endured in your defense of the text messages around Trump.
First of all, I want to start off by asking you, Tucker, how has it been in the six months Well, I've been fired, you know, it's not the first time I've been fired.
And I think in our business, when you work for a big company in media and, you know, you say what you think, there's an expectation that you could get fired.
So I've always had that.
And I've always tried to take the long view, not just on media, but on life.
All graves go unvisited in the end.
I always think that.
So I was surprised.
I didn't expect to get fired that morning at all in April.
So I was shocked, but I wasn't really shocked.
And I wasn't mad.
It's not my company.
And when you work for someone else, that person reserves the right, and in fact has inherently the right, to decide whether you work there or not.
And I don't know why I was fired.
I really don't.
I'm not angry about it.
Uh, you can believe me or not, but I think you can feel that I'm not.
Um, and, you know, I wish Fox well.
Uh, there was, you know, ugly leaking, you know, I'm a racist or whatever they leaked, or someone there leaked to the New York Times, but I, that's not true.
And I think the people who run the company know that's not true.
I actually don't think they did it.
Um, and I'm not mad about it.
And I've been, I've been happy.
I guess the only thing that bothers me Is I'm 54, and when you get a little bit older, and my wife and I, you know, our children are grown and we live in rural settings, as you do, because we believe in nature and God and dogs.
You know, you can lose your drive.
I mean, it's just a little bit too nice, kind of.
And I do feel like we, you know, people who are healthy and aware and who can read, like have an obligation to be engaged.
In the life of the community they live in and the life of the country they live in and the life of the world to the extent that they can.
And so my only fear has been maybe being a little bit too happy.
You know, I've spent a lot of time trout fishing, a lot of time, we have four dogs, a lot of time with my dogs and my wife and a lot of kind of like late breakfast outside stuff.
You know, like you don't, that's not, I mean, that's great, but life is, has got to be more than that.
So now I'm back to work and I'm grateful to be, to be doing that.
The fact that you're broadcasting now on Twitter suggests that you still want to remain engaged in the international conversation, which is a conversation about ethics.
It's a conversation about power.
If you're watching us on Rumble right now, remember to press the red button if you want to join us on Locals.
That's where I watch the conversation.
I can see Sensitive Hearts, Ashella, all of our beautiful, unified, diverse Community that speak openly and freely there, please do join us because at the end of this conversation Tucker's going to join us for an additional chat.
True or false with Tucker?
In a sense the whole conversation is true or false.
I mean what's the point in having a conversation if there isn't some line between authenticity and falsehood?
You touched briefly for a moment on the idea of racism and of course this is an idea that's talked about a lot or an accusation really that's been offered When I went on your show in America, mate, which I enormously enjoyed, and the personal connection with you that we have since cultivated is the thing that I perhaps most enjoyed, I spoke to some of my friends that are overtly liberal, even though many of them are beginning to recognise that the categories of left and right are shifting.
What they said is that Tucker Carlson, when he talks about demographic shifts in the United States of America, how the balance between different ethnicities is shifting over time, that that is codified racism.
And some of them, like some of my mates that are LA Democrats, like, you know, me, I don't believe in any political party anymore in this country.
Tell me about it.
Yeah, no, I agree.
But I do still feel that some of the principles that are more typically associated with the left, like recognising that all voices have a value in the conversation and that essentially that racism is bad.
So how do you feel about that?
And what are you talking about when you say there's a demographic shift?
What do you mean?
I would say a couple of things.
First, I always try, I'm over 50, so like why wouldn't I just say exactly what I think at all times?
And I do.
And so if I had Well, whatever my racial views are, I would just say them.
And I'm just saying them now.
So my views about race begin with my religious faith, which is not very sophisticated, but is sincere.
And that begins with the belief, the knowledge, the certainty that God created people, that they're not objects, they're not machines.
They're not widgets in a bin waiting to be assembled by some company.
They are distinct individuals with distinct souls and they have equal value in the eyes of God.
Doesn't mean they have equal ability.
Doesn't mean they have, they all look the same, but it means they have equal inherent value.
And my politics flow from that belief.
Yes.
And so the idea that you would reduce people to their race and say, you know, we're going to treat this person better or worse because of his skin color is repugnant to me.
And it's something that I've argued against every day that I was at Fox News, I think all of my life.
You can't punish or reward people based on their immutable characteristics.
Yes.
Because they didn't choose those characteristics.
So it's inherently unfair.
It's inherently immoral.
I'm totally opposed to it.
And so if that's a racist position, I guess You know, I'll just stand and take the punishment.
I don't think that is.
I think that's an argument against racism.
I think it's wrong to reduce people to qualities they were born with and they can't control.
Period.
Yes.
My views on immigration are super simple and I think mainstream and sensible.
The fact of who lives in a country more than any other fact determines what the country is like.
And so if you change it radically over a very short period of time, you're going to have a lot of social upheaval, a lot of churn.
It's going to rattle people.
People can't metabolize change.
Very well.
The Industrial Revolution led to Stalinism and then the Third Reich.
Like, these are basic facts.
It's not an attack on anyone's color at all.
And I'm, you know, whatever.
So those are my views.
I support a lot of, well, I don't know how I feel about immigration as a topic.
There are a lot of immigrants I love, including my best friend, for whatever it's worth.
Of course, I'm not against immigrants.
That's insane.
But the way that the United States is doing immigration is designed to wreck the country, and to make it unstable, and to destroy any social cohesion whatsoever, or social trust, and make people hate each other, and add to racial, yes, racial division, which I hate, because it's not solvable.
In contrast to, say, class division.
If we're arguing about class, well, at least class theoretically can change.
I can ascend or descend classes.
But race doesn't change.
Because we're not responsible for it.
We're created that way.
So you don't want racial conflict.
That's the one thing you don't want.
And I feel that in the United States, our leaders not only want racial conflict, but are stoking it.
But as a practical matter, just in the context of US politics, and perhaps it's similar in the UK, the term racist or white supremacist or white nationalist, these are terms designed to stop people from talking.
I remember the first time I was called a white supremacist, and for whatever it's worth, I don't want to sound offensive, but I grew up in Southern California in the 70s, living with a father who was, in modern terms, very racially progressive.
He was always saying, God created people.
Racism didn't even make sense to me.
That was not a factor in my life at all.
And we lived right next to Mexico.
Whatever.
So, but the first time I was called a white supremacist, I was like, geez, that's, it hurt.
It stung.
And I thought, I'm not exactly sure what that is, but I know that I'm not one, but I know that that's like the worst thing you can be.
That's like calling someone a Nazi or a monster or Satan or like, what is that?
And I was bothered by it.
It was right when I started my last Fox show, so it was in the fall of 2016.
And I did a kind of long, very sincere, I mean it too, sincere script about how, you know, this is what I believe and we're all created by God and you should never punish or reward people based on their skin color.
And it had no effect at all.
And then I realized the people using those terms are not sincere at all.
There's no sincerity.
The words have no meaning to them, except as they're useful as tools to acquire political power and to make anyone who stands in the way of that shut up or go away or go to prison.
And so once I realized they weren't sincere, then it's like, that's between me and God.
And not only am I not a racist, I'm not much of a hater.
I really try not to be.
And there are things that I hate and there are people I feel like I'm on the verge of hating sometimes or I feel myself obsessing.
You know, you're like in the, in the truck or you're, you know, walking the dogs and you're pissed about something and I can't be that fucking person, you know, whatever.
And I really try and catch myself and say to myself, don't, that will eat you if you let it fester like that.
Don't be that way.
I'm not, I'm very flawed person, but I really try not to be a hater because I, I think that's death.
I mean it too.
One of the areas of your answer there that I imagine we could talk about further are the distinctions between having a position on immigration and its potential ability to destabilise an indigenous population.
How you, again, cross-reference that with colonial and imperial history.
How you cross-reference that with globalism and an attempt to create sort of like a centralist authoritarian model.
That's something we could talk about a lot longer, I'm sure, the distinction between racism and having a position on immigration.
You get in the way of their business plan and they call you a racist.
That's what's actually happening here?
to you.
This is from At The Boss.
This is on Locals.
If you want to watch this on Locals, press the red button and join our Locals community.
We aim to have conversations like this all the time because my belief is actually an optimistic and hopeful one of humanity that we share more with one another than divides us and that there are ways of reorganising society radically and that our categories and our lexicon has to alter significantly because left and right are starting to become redundant when there
are so many similarities between the left and right, when both appear to be driving towards
centralist authoritarian models where you are surveilled and censored at will, where free
conversation is closed down on the basis that there is some other authority that knows
better than you what you mean when you're speaking and that they have the right to shut you
down. Press that red button and join us over on local so you can ask questions to Tucker. I'm
assuming that your questions for Tucker are bloody, I'll answer any question that you
throw my way, let me tell you. @dabof says, "What is your relationship with Trump like now?" But
before Tucker tells us what his relationship with Donald Trump is like right now,
having said once, like, you know, those text messages, remember that stuff? And then publicly
saying that Donald Trump is significant. Plus, we've got to talk about RFK. Plus, we've
got to talk about censorship.
Plus, we've got to talk about the military industrial complex. Plus, we've got to talk
about the Hunter Biden laptop.
And plus, we've got to talk about Big Pharma.
And in order to do that, we have to have free speech.
That's why you've got to click on the link in the description.
Join us over on Rumble right now.
And if you're with us on Rumble... Bye-bye, YouTube.
We love you, you 6.4 million Awakening Wonders.
If you're watching us on Rumble, press the red button and join us on Locals and post your questions there.
There's so much to ask you.
I'm so grateful to you for coming here.
Do you like it?
Are you happy?
I love it.
Have you got everything you need?
Can I offer you any more snacks, nicotine, gum?
I've got my nicotine, I've got my Pellegrino, I had my coffee, I'm in my happy place.
I'm so glad that you're comfortable here.
Thank you so much.
It means a lot that you've given us this interview.
Thank you very much, Tucker.
Mate, so I suppose what we're asking there is that it seems that you said that Trump was no longer relevant in the political conversation.
He was no longer the lightning rod.
He was no longer the berserker of American politics.
Loads of people on our platform absolutely love Donald Trump.
Trump, they see him as the solution to America's problems.
They see him as the great swamp drainer.
It seems you have occupied varying positions on Trump at various times.
Where are you on Donald Trump now?
And particularly perhaps how that relates to the emergence of radical anti-establishment figures within the Democrat Party, notably RFK.
Uh, where am I on Trump now?
I love Trump, personally.
I mean, I made a huge mistake last November in getting involved in American politics, something I've never done before.
And making calls, you know, this guy's going to win.
I think this is going to happen in this state.
Meet your new governor, New York, stuff like that.
And I was wrong on almost every call.
I'm not a very astute political analyst.
I'm not interested in politics.
I never have been interested in politics.
I'm interested in ideas.
I'm interested in people.
And so there's a primary going on in the United States between Trump and a bunch of other people, primarily Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, but others, Vivek Ramaswamy, for example.
And I haven't said word one about it, don't plan to.
I, you know, I think looking back on this 10 years from now, assuming we're still around, I think we're going to see Trump's emergence as the most significant thing to happen in American politics in 100 years, because he reoriented the Republican Party against the wishes of Republican leaders.
Uh, but when I think about Trump right now, so it's July of 2023, you know, I'm struck by his foreign policy views.
You know, Trump is the only person, um, with stature in the Republican Party, really, who's saying, wait a second, you know, why are we supporting an endless war in Ukraine?
And that, you know, leaving aside whether Trump's going to get the nomination or get elected president or would be a good president, you know, I can't even assess that.
All I can say at this point is I'm so grateful that he has that position.
He's right.
And everyone in Washington's wrong.
Everyone.
And Trump is right on that question.
And it's a big question.
That war is reshaping the world.
It's reshaping the economy of the world.
It's reshaping populations.
I mean, I was just in Romania last week, which is of course shares a border with Ukraine.
The refugees in that region, the number of people killed in that war, I mean, Europe
will never be the same because of this war.
And it really matters.
And Trump alone among popular figures in both parties understands that, and I'm grateful
Whether he gets the nomination or gets elected, words really matter.
Saying something true out loud matters.
And he is saying true things about Ukraine, and God bless him.
That's how I feel.
So Trump generated, I suppose, a new type of populism.
He rebooted politics, he reordered the Republican Party.
Perhaps, is it fair to say that other than the significant fact that he was less militaristic significantly than other comparable presidents, at least recent presidents I mean by that, do you think that he delivered in office?
Why do you think he remains so fascinating?
Do you think that Do you think that the Americans, broadly speaking, that are attracted to Donald Trump are attracted by his foreign policy stance?
No.
Or do you think that there's something else?
And do you not think that RFK, who is, in my understanding, he's been on the show a couple of times, he's now on Rumble, and I find him to be a very admirable man, he similarly is vehemently anti-war, anti this conflict, and seems to also have identified the unspoken intention to be the deracination and annihilation of Russia for globalist and economic reasons.
Yes.
The rather naive assumption that it's in any way a humanitarian conflict.
It's for democracy!
That's my favorite, it's for democracy!
Okay, say the people who hate democracy.
Well, I love Bobby Kennedy, and I've had him on my show many times.
He announced for president on my show, which took a lot of stones on his part, given how despised I am by a lot of Democratic primary voters.
I think he's a wonderful person, I'll say that.
Just as a man, I admire him.
I admire, he said the greatest thing any politician or any public figures ever said to me at dinner a couple of years ago.
You know, they've gone after his family.
The pharma companies and their agents and the media have really gone after his family.
His siblings, they convinced a bunch of his siblings to denounce his views.
So painful, and I'm so close to my family I can't even imagine that.
And I said to him, Um, what's that like?
I thought I took a lot of shit.
I can't even imagine what that would be like.
If my brother denounced me, I'd probably shoot myself.
I couldn't handle it.
So if it was Buck, he would be able to provide the weapon.
Well, yeah, my brother's not going to denounce me.
He's my best friend and wonderful man.
But anyway, so I said to him, what's that like?
And he said, and I'm quoting, I probably shouldn't be quoting a private conversation, but he said this to me.
He said, I've got seven children and they all love me.
I don't care.
Wow.
And I thought, okay, you want us to distill my values into a sentence?
That's the sentence.
So, I really admire him.
I don't agree with him on everything.
I do agree with him, I'll just be honest, on most things.
On the big things.
And so, no, I love what he's doing.
I love his bravery, which is just remarkable.
The amount that man has suffered for what he thinks is true.
The amount of money he's lost, the friends he's lost.
He's been ostracized in a way most people can't even understand because he ticked off a drug company?
Really?
And he's persevered and I really admire him.
If RFK and Trump have risen, as they plainly have, to capture the popular imagination, and yet both to a degree are stymied, shackled or reluctantly tolerated by their party, what does that tell us about the shifting sands of American political life?
I think the area where you and I most plainly and overtly align, perhaps other than the belief in God I suppose, is our Deep understanding that the military-industrial complex and Big Pharma are able to exert significant power over the Democratic Party, a democratic process that renders ordinary electoral politics basically meaningless.
These two figures are like populist anti-establishment figures in a sense.
What do you feel is the likelihood of either of them being able to pass through the internal mechanics of their parties, you know, in the case of RFK, through the legal hurdles that are being placed in front of Trump at the moment, and what is the role of independent media, in particular, say, a figure like Elon Musk, who seems, at the moment at least, to have the power to fight on that terrain?
I know there was a lot in that question, Tucker, but... Well, I would say a couple things.
The United States has had precisely, in 250 years almost, one populist president, and that was Teddy Roosevelt, also the most popular president in American history, who was president from 1901, who he served as VP was shot to death, until 1908.
Most popular president the United States ever had, and he was a populist.
The two biggest populist figures in the moment are Trump and Bobby Jr., and then we had a guy called Ross Perot run about 30 years ago who roughly had the same politics.
All four of those figures had one thing in common.
They were all from the world they criticized.
So you think of populist, you know, the English Peasant Revolt.
Yes.
Which is one of the most interesting things ever to happen, where they stormed the Tower of London and killed, I think they killed the Archbishop.
I'm from there.
That's died in Essex.
Yes.
Watt Tyler.
Yeah, Watt Tyler, exactly.
We're not even sure if that was his real name.
Watt Tyler.
Watt Tyler.
But he was a legit peasant.
Like, we don't even know when he was born.
And that was not an effective rebellion.
Of course, they did not free the serfs after that, as I recall.
But, the effective populists are the ones who critique from the inside and say, I grew up in this world.
Teddy Roosevelt grew up rich, of course, in New York.
Trump, Perot, Bobby, I mean, Bobby Kennedy's family is one of the most famous families in the world in modern history, the Kennedys, and certainly the most famous family in democratic politics.
So these are people who know how the system works because they've benefited from the system.
And so their critique is much more meaningful and much more effective, I would say, because they can bear witness to what they have seen.
Um, I don't think Trump has changed politics in Washington.
I think the parties both have been very resistant to any kind of reform and that's very foolish.
That's a Ceausescu move.
You see things changing around you and you just, you can't metabolize it.
You can't sort of change with the moment and then you, you know, you meet a bad end when you become that rigid.
Um, I think that Bobby Kennedy and Trump will both have a very tough time getting the nomination.
I'm hoping that both of them will, of course, I guess.
I'm hoping that their message will be heard.
I don't know.
I don't even know what I hope for in the process itself, but I want them to be heard, and they can now be heard.
Because there are channels of information that people can tune into and listen.
I mean, I would just, I would just, I would amend one thing you said when you said that, you know, these huge multinationals control our politics.
Well, they also control our media.
Yeah.
They do.
I mean, Pharma, as you well know and often say on your show, is the biggest advertiser on American television.
Probably true in the UK as well.
And so, you know, there's no incentive whatsoever to question their products.
And now we have, because of the social media companies, Twitter and Rumble and probably others, we have less filtered sources of information with fewer gatekeepers and a higher probability you'll hear something true.
I think that's a huge change.
I mean, how can you...
I mean this is like Samus Dot.
This is like, you know, this is like information that the people in charge don't want you to see and now you can see it.
It really is the promise of the internet finally fulfilled.
That's my hope anyway.
Figures like RFK and Trump already demonstrably through his successful use of Twitter are going to require New models of media in order to build an audience whether
or not you align with the views of those individuals It's it's plain to see that the traditional media models
curtail and censor their rhetoric Why when you left Fox News?
I think like those of us that work in the independent media space or for our like Tucker's leaving like an I even if I
May say like when we met like are you gonna leave Fox like I?
Like, I felt like, just from the, just because of your awareness, and because of the stuff you were saying about the mainstream, the fact you're having Glenn Greenwald on there, and people every week.
From his bunker in Rio!
I love Glenn.
What a good man.
He's a beautiful human being.
He's no doubt a brilliant man.
So we were all amongst us thinking, where will Tucker go?
Will he be joining us on Rumble?
Will you set up your own thing?
What was it about your conversations with Elon Musk that led you to work there on Twitter?
Well, I don't work for Elon.
He's paid me zero money.
I don't think I ever want to work for anyone again.
I've done that.
I'd like to make money.
I mean, I've, you know, I think that's fair.
I've made zero money since I left, and that's fine.
But at some point I'd like to, but I'm not working for Elon Musk.
He hasn't offered to hire me, and if he did, I wouldn't accept.
Um, but what he's done is offered me that what he's offered every other user of Twitter, which is a, you know, a chance to broadcast Your views without a gatekeeper there.
But I do think, you know, I think the technology at Twitter is my expectation is evolving.
And I think, you know, the subscription model, you know, might work or might not.
You know, I don't know, but I think it might.
And and I plan to I plan to stay there.
But what social media offer in the short term, at least for me, is an audience, but also a reason.
This is personal, but a reason to write.
I can't think clearly without writing.
You know, I started in this business as a magazine writer and a book writer, newspaper writer, and I need to write things out.
I'm very dyslexic and I can't, you know, I have trouble processing information in certain ways.
And unless I'm forced to write a script, I can't really decide what I think about something.
And so the daily or regular discipline of writing a script It forces me, and in some cases it really is forced.
I don't want to do it.
I'd much rather go fishing or bird hunting.
You know, I would.
But if I have to, I will.
And there's something wonderful in that.
You know, writing a script, as you know, forces you to think through everything about the issue.
To have a much deeper understanding of it.
At least for me, that's true.
So I couldn't go too long without writing or my IQ would drop dramatically.
I don't think I'd ever recover.
We had Stephen Friend on here, and the other FBI whistleblower, and importantly, and perhaps this is the most important thing about that story, one of their brothers and sisters has tattooed stick figures of me on their genitals.
That's the defining issue.
How has that affected his dating life?
It's ruined it.
Well, I mean, I think it would kind of narrow the available population down a little bit.
It's just me now. I'm the only person who sees that as an advantage.
Oh, well, I am honoured. Do as you will.
But also, they said, of course, these FBI whistleblowers, that the FBI had a significant
number of agents, that there were other law enforcement agencies there on January the 6th.
In fact, it was the whistleblowing on this subject that caused them all this grief.
That in a sense, there are some discrepancies, shall we say, on how that event was initially
reported on with regards to what actually went down.
Now, what you've been accused of in the mainstream after you received, I think it was like 40,000
hours of footage from your man McCarthy there, was that you sort of...
Cherry-picked is the phrase that often comes up, footage to deliberately show that it was, to a degree, a peaceful event.
What is your sincere opinion of what went on on January the 6th?
And why do you feel that there is yet an attempt to regard it as a deliberate insurrection?
And also within that, I guess the possibility for presenting moments of peace within 40,000 hours of footage does exist.
So were you sincere in your presentation or do you have a particular perspective on how you wanted that event to be seen?
Well, let me just say, one of my children was there working in the building and called me during it.
And was right nearby when Ashley Babbitt was shot.
So I was interested in it from the moment it happened.
I was appalled by the vandalism outside, by fighting with police officers.
I hate violence.
From abortion to the war in Ukraine.
I mean, I am consistent on that.
I'm not a Catholic, but I definitely share those views.
I'm not for the death penalty.
I'm not for killing people.
I'm not for hurting people.
I'm not for violence.
And I've had those views for a long time.
So, you know, any violence on January 6th, I oppose.
I've said that many times.
I was kind of happy to leave it where it was, which is this got completely out of hand.
The only reason I ever got involved in commenting on it was, and we did a show that night saying, well, this is awful, right?
What happened?
Was the lying about it was immediate.
This was a racist, white supremacist insurrection!
Well, okay.
There was no indication to this day that race had anything to do with it at all.
Like, nothing.
These were people who thought the election was stolen from them.
There's some evidence they were right.
We could debate that.
But that's what they thought.
That's a meaningful thing.
If you've got a big population in your country that doesn't believe that your elections are on the level, you need to figure out a way to convince them that the elections are on the level, or else you can't have democracy, because it's a faith-based system.
So that was the first thing I noticed.
There was no effort at all to convince people, actually, electronic voting machines are secure.
Which they are not.
By the way, that's a lie.
In any country that has electronic voting machines is by definition at risk of having its elections stolen.
By definition.
No country that cared about democracy would have electronic voting machines, okay?
First thing.
But no one even, and by the way, many Democrats have made that point.
Not now, but ten years ago.
There was no effort to reassure anybody.
They immediately used it as a cudgel to make their political opponents shut up, and in a lot of cases, to send them to jail.
So I noticed this, and I'm like, wait a second, nobody here is operating in good faith at all.
They're just immediately lying with maximum aggression.
And anyone who asks questions about it, like me, and if you could go back and look at the tape, my first five shows on January 6th were like, well, yeah, it's bad, but I don't think you're telling the truth about what actually happened.
Shut up!
Racist!
What?
So that's always the key for me.
It's like an infection.
You know it's infected when it hurts.
You press it.
You recoil.
They immediately recoiled when you asked any questions about January 6th.
And that was a tip off to me.
I mean, I had no thought in my head as I watched this happen on television and in the subsequent weeks that U.S.
Law enforcement or military agencies had anything to do with it that never crossed my mind I never thought there was it was a false flag or anything like that.
I'm not a conspiracist by temperament.
I never thought that And then I interviewed the chief of the Capitol Police Steven Sund in an interview that was never aired on Fox by the way.
I was fired before it could air I'm gonna interview him again, but Steven Sund was the totally non-political Worked for Nancy Pelosi.
I mean, this was not some right-wing activist.
He was the chief of the Capitol Police on January 6th.
And he said, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, that guy was filled with federal agents.
What?
Yes.
Well, he would know, of course, because he was in charge of security at the site.
So the more time has passed, now it's been two and a half years, it becomes really obvious that core claims they made about January 6th were lies.
And my view about events and about people Is, if you catch someone telling a lie about one thing, the first question you have is, what else are you lying about?
If you say to your wife, where were you?
I was at the grocery store.
If you find out she was not at the grocery store, then it raises, okay, probably not just lying about being at the grocery store, were you?
Like, what is this exactly?
Why were you lying about that?
And that's kind of the way I feel about January.
Like, what is this?
This is, they're clearly lying.
That's provable.
Why?
And, you know, I'm the last person, I'm often accused of being a conspiracy, not I'm the opposite.
I grew up in a very stable country, the United States, in the 70s and 80s, where people didn't indulge in conspiracies because there weren't any obvious ones afoot, right?
I mean, we took things at face value, we trusted our government, by and large.
Um, but, I, the amount of lying around January 6th, and it was obvious in the tapes that I showed, um, is really distressing, and anyone who's covering for those lies should be ashamed of himself, and that would include almost the entire American media, including Fox News, um, people at Fox News.
Fox News, to its great credit, let me air that, and I'm grateful that they did, but there are, you know, there are people there who were mad at me for airing that.
Really, why?
If you think I'm cherry picking it and taking it out of context, show me where.
And by the way, I didn't make the claim that it was entirely peaceful.
It wasn't.
Police officers were injured.
More police officers were injured at the riots in front of the White House the year before, but whatever.
All injuries to police officers or anyone else are bad.
I'm certainly not making excuses for it.
But I'm asking obvious questions.
You said this happened, for example.
There was a guy called the QAnon Shaman, Jacob Chansley.
They put the guy in prison for years!
There is surveillance tape that they hid, until I aired it, showing the Capitol Police trying lots of doors, trying to get into the Senate chamber, the sacrosanct chamber that he wasn't allowed to be in, and then escorting him in!
And he kind of wanders around like he's taking a hit of mescaline, just kind of, you know what I mean?
And like, he says a prayer, he thanks God for the Capitol Police, and then he wanders out.
Now, there are a lot of conclusions you could draw from that, but you cannot call that guy an insurrectionist.
That's a lie.
And by the way, an insurrection is a very specific meaning, and I'm pedantic about words because they're the currency that I trade in.
I mean, that's what I do.
I use words for a living, so I care about their specific meanings.
That was not an insurrection.
It was not armed, and its purpose was not to overthrow the government.
It was a spasm of rage that Trump definitely helped inspire, that's true, at the election results.
Okay, you know, I'm not actually for that.
I don't think leaders should be making people more pissed in general.
Um, but that's what it was.
It was not an insurrection.
And to put Jacob Chansley, an American citizen, a Navy veteran, in jail for years after he was let into the Senate chamber by uniformed Capitol Hill police officers, and then I play that, and I'm the bad guy?
Fuck you!
Like, what do you make of that?
I'm sorry, it makes me mad just thinking about it.
I said I wasn't gonna be a hater.
That makes me mad.
And I see people on other channels, it's outrageous!
He's trying to minimize January 6th.
Well, but what?
This guy went to prison!
Went to prison!
You ever been to prison?
Only for visits.
Right, okay!
It's not very nice, just to clarify.
You don't want to go to prison to take a man's freedom away and call him all these names for something he didn't do and then show no remorse at all when you are exposed to have lied about it.
As a human being who was locked away in a prison, it's an outrage to me.
Fuck up.
Would you mind if I spoke from time to time?
It's very hard to get in this position.
See that Iraq War that was brilliant when you went on that podcast and went that you were ashamed that you participated and that you rallied for that war.
Now to hear you talk about Jan 6, you're saying that at the beginning you had no axe to grind and broadly speaking you oppose violence of any kind.
I do!
I know, I believe you.
And you oppose violence against the police perhaps in particular.
Now, though, it seems that you are inquiring, if not suggesting, that there was another aim.
Are you saying that it allowed the capital police to be funded differently and more extensively?
Are you saying that it facilitated further authoritarianism?
That it enabled people to smear the MAGA movement?
That it created more opportunity for surveillance laws and censorship?
Um, techniques or critiques that we use here on our channel when looking at news is, oh does this allow people to censor more?
Does this allow people to surveil more?
Does this allow, for example, like I sort of just to use as sort of something anecdotal and contemporaneous, that there's a just stop oil movement in this country at the moment and whenever you see footage of them sort of blocking roads and sort of road users dragging them out the road because it's annoying, I say this as a person who sort of loves nature, loves the environment, feels that profit shouldn't be put ahead of respect and love for the environment.
I can't help but feel that the media has an agenda in continually presenting us with these annoying images of Just Stop Oil getting in the way of ordinary commuters who are just trying to get to work.
I'm beginning to now critique media from that perspective.
Oh, they are using this event in order to elicit these emotions, whether it's war or the events of January 6th.
Do you believe that there is, as George Carlin would say, a convergence of interest between the state and its desire to regulate and corporations and their desire to profit, big tech and their desire to capture data, the state and their need to get data?
What is it you're observing?
Because when I'm listening to you, you don't sound like a regular TV anchor anymore.
And in fact, one of the things I'm offering is that that's not a role that's going to exist for much longer because the centralisation of authority is becoming so rapid and so radical that if you even work in this space, you know, with these new EU laws being passed that will mean that social media platforms will be heavily fined 6% of their annual revenue and that they can be censored.
The Five Eyes countries all passing censorship laws.
In a sense, to become an independent media voice will be to become an activist So, with regard to the January 6th, do you think these events are used to create particular outcomes?
Do you think it's just opportunistic?
And where do you feel your personal role is as an independent media broadcaster is now?
Well, I think my role is to tell the truth to the extent I can see it.
You know, to say what I think is true.
Always with the knowledge that we see everything You know, through a glass darkly, we don't see things clearly.
We don't have perspective on ourselves, the world around us.
We get a lot wrong.
I've gotten a lot wrong, that's for sure.
But you do your best.
And you cannot allow people to force you to lie.
Period.
So that's how I see my role.
I think you're asking the right question.
And I ask the same thing about the climate movement.
I mean, I'm bewildered by it.
Apart from my own family, there's nothing more important to me than nature.
I think I spend an above average time in nature amount of time.
I mean, I've organized my whole life to be in nature.
So I really, really care about it.
And I'm very upset about the many ways in which it's despoiled, at least in my country.
I mean, nature is not doing well.
The environmental movement is gone where I live.
And we pollute, we put up chain stores and strip malls and pave things we should not pave.
We are very tough on nature in the United States.
And the environmental movement does nothing to stop that.
And so my question for the climate people, and I have no doubt the climate is changing, it's always changed.
I live in a place...
That was completely sculpted by the glaciers, which only melted 10,000 years ago.
There were people, there were people living where I live, in Northwestern Maine, when the glaciers receded.
10,000, the Native Americans, 10,000 years ago.
So like, this is a feature of life on Earth.
But, and so I have no doubt it's changing again.
And I would be completely open to the possibility that people's behavior is accelerating that change, or driving it to some extent.
It doesn't sound crazy to me.
I don't think it's proven, but I'm open to it.
Of course I am.
My question is really simple.
Which of your solutions to climate change disempower you?
So when you act your father on behalf of your children, you are doing things because you love them.
They're not necessarily in your interest.
Like, you'd rather go take a sauna or do some yoga.
Or hop on your wife, but no, you have a child with needs, so you love that child, so you do something for that child.
That's what it looks like to serve and love someone, is to do something you don't want to do, doesn't help you in any way, but at least potentially helps that other person.
I see the climate movement not doing one thing that doesn't enrich or empower the climate movement and its corporate sponsors.
Not one.
So for example, not to be boorish here in lecture, but I'll stop with this.
Like, if I understand You know, the ecology correctly, trees are like helpful if you're worried about rising CO2, correct?
Because they consume it and then emit what?
Oxygen.
So if you're really worried about climate change caused by carbon dioxide, you'd probably be planting a lot of trees.
I don't see a ton of, and I would be very for that as someone who truly loves trees and spends a lot of time thinking about trees and have a lot of trees and maintain a lot of trees.
I love trees almost more than anything.
Like, where's the nationwide effort to reforest the United States?
I don't see it.
Instead, I see a lot of solar panels from China that don't work, that actually wreck the environment, industrial wind farms that wreck where I live.
Like, I live near them.
I know what they do.
They kill all these birds of prey.
It's like they're destroying the environment, but they're becoming richer.
So, on January 6th, tell me one solution that doesn't make you more powerful.
Yeah.
There's not one!
So, that's an indication of bad faith to me.
And of course, you know, I'm not going to be boorish and I'll stop, but anyone who's interested in the uses to which January 6th has been put by the people in charge in Washington can look it up.
I mean, the surveillance that was justified The total capture of our banks, for example, by the FBI in the wake of January 6th is completely shocking to any civil libertarian.
You can't call my bank and find out what I spent money on.
You don't have a warrant.
What?
That's not allowed under our Constitution.
But they did it because it was an insurrection.
Okay.
So, you know, I don't know, I can't even guess as the mechanics of January 6th.
Did the many federal agents in the crowd do this?
Did they go along with it?
I don't know the answer and I'm not going to speculate.
But I know in the aftermath of January 6th, that event was used by predators in our political sphere to increase their power and to disempower the population they supposedly serve.
And I'm very offended by that.
Not because I'm some crazed populist.
I'm not.
I don't want to burn anything down.
I'm like very temperamentally conservative.
I like to build things, not break them.
But you can't look at me with a straight face and tell me you're defending democracy when you get JPMorgan to go through my credit card statements.
You're lying.
That's my only point.
You're lying.
Yes, it is a good point.
I suppose that both the pandemic era and the current war can have that critique equally well applied.
Who benefits from this ability to surveil and impose, for example, vaccine passports?
Who benefits from our inability to openly communicate on these subjects?
It always appears that there is a sort of an invisible hand guiding these events, guiding the conversation.
Amplifying certain voices, diminishing others, and it always appears to somehow benefit centralist, authoritarian institutions, be they governmental, corporate, or financial.
Anti-human!
And war does it especially.
And if you'll pardon me, and I don't mean this as criticism of your country, which I love, but I've spent the last week in England, and I've driven all around.
It's nice, isn't it?
It's beyond belief how pretty it is.
But one thing that just I can't get over is the stark change, the stark change in architecture between 1939 when you all entered the war, after the invasion of Poland, and 1945 when you quote won, okay?
Architecture changed completely and it went from designs that complemented the landscape around them And local material, you know, used in ways to, I think, elevate the human spirit to a kind of architecture that clearly hates people.
That is designed to oppress the human spirit and make people feel without value, worthless.
And that is ugly and disposable and made out of materials that are not worthy to be lived in, that are disgusting.
And you see that not just in England, but also in the United States.
Pre-war, as you well know, is a selling point for apartments in New York for a reason.
Everything changed with the war.
And there's something about war that changes people in a very, very deep way, down to the architecture, which is an expression of how we feel about each other.
The buildings that we build to house our fellow man say a lot about how we feel about our fellow man.
In my view.
And after the Second World War, I mean, it completely changed and it became very aggressively anti-people.
Like, what kind of person could come up with brutalist architecture?
Or it's many tributaries, and there are many.
Brutalism is just the most obvious one, but all architecture post-war is really kind of brutalist, actually.
What are you saying when you build a building like that?
You're saying that the people who occupy the building are worth nothing.
That's what you're saying.
Whereas you drive through the Cotswolds and people in the pre-industrial age with no electricity and no machines built buildings that are still standing and true to this day using local limestone and thatch.
And the result was beautiful.
And by the way, I'm not just saying this as an Anglo, whose ancestors lived in this country, I'm saying this just as a human being.
I think if you brought someone from the streets of Tokyo to the Cotswolds and said, what do you think of that building?
He would say, that's beautiful.
Because beauty is inherent.
Every person recognizes beauty.
Okay?
It's not culturally specific, actually.
A Shinto temple in Kyoto, I recognize it immediately as beautiful, because it is.
Because it's It's consistent with the symmetry of nature.
But the war changed.
The war always does that.
War makes people less human.
It hurts them in some deep way.
The survivors I'm talking about.
Even the ones whose legs weren't blown off.
It's interesting to me how often you appear to be referring to the ulterior energetic force, emotion or essence of a thing, i.e.
that beauty could perhaps be the manifestation of love.
I've obviously myself observed many times that municipal and state buildings were once plainly an expression of a contract between the people and their government of a good faith relationship.
I just thought that!
I walked up with my wife in the rain on a village hall in Eastlitch in the town of the Cotswolds and the village hall was so beautiful and I thought whoever built that cared about the people it was built by the people who live there for the people who live there and they loved the people live there because they were related to them or knew them and that hall I mean I it was built by peasants without machines!
Yes it's impossible to explain Ignore that beneath even these architectural changes that you refer to is an insidious economic ideology.
Of course there is a kind of a disdain for the population and the public and this disdain is something we're continually talking about, whether it's the media, whether it's the state, whether it's private corporations.
You can kind of tell they don't like you and they don't respect So when populist figures emerge, i.e.
most notably Trump, who somehow seems to give timbre to this idea that, hey, they don't like us very much, it's pretty plain that, you know, for a while... Right there, that's Trump's appeal right there.
When he was talking about Roosevelt a moment ago, that he came from the bourgeoisie or the intelligentsia, it was sort of notable that there's a requirement for an alliance between people who understand, experientially, systemic The way that systems conduct themselves, the way systems operate, the bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, whatever word you want to use for that critique, and ordinary people.
This, I believe, is the communicative bridge that needs to be built.
I've long felt that it is disgusting that most people now feel voiceless, and not most, many people feel that their their electoral agencies are not worthy of trust, media is
not worthy of trust.
There will never be another election I don't imagine in your country, Tucker,
where the other side goes, "Oh, well done winning that election!"
Whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans, the other side is just going to go,
"It was corrupt, it was disgusting, look at these machines, there were Russian agents involved,
you can't rely on this!" So there is much that needs to be healed and obviously what we
continually offer here is that what's required is indeed, beyond an investigation and an
interrogation of those agencies, new systems of decentralization to move democracy as close as
possible to the people affected by it, which I suppose is a principle that's evident in federalism,
but something that we can discuss more in a moment.
Tucker Carlson has talked about the great beauty of this nation in some ways, and I mean this with all due love and respect to our cousins across the Atlantic, a country that in a way Invented your country a little bit.
You've just had Independence Day.
It was a mistake to throw all that tea into... What do you mean?
In some ways, it definitely invented our country.
I mean, we're an English country.
And what a lovely language we gave you and all.
And so, it's a temporary celebration of what we do here in this country.
Here's a word from our sponsors.
Please stay with us, because afterwards, me and Tucker are going to talk a lot more about the military-industrial complex, how deeply embedded they are in the system.
I'm going to ask Tucker, even though there are probably contractual restrictions for what Tucker can and can't talk about, I'm going to say, Why do you reckon Fox Sacked you?
Do you reckon it was Jan 6?
Do you reckon it's they speaking out too much?
A bit too much Glenn Greenwald on a Sunday afternoon?
What was it exactly that you reckon?
So stay with us.
Also consider joining me for Community and indeed my comedy special during the pandemic period, Brandemic.
Have a look at these messages.
We're going to be back and asking Tucker the kind of questions that he would ask people while laughing.
Oh, I know!
I'm sure you believe it!
Ha!
That's fantastic!
See you in a second.
Stay free with Russell Brand.
See it first on Rumble.
Fantastic there.
Yeah, do join us if you can.
We've got some fantastic questions still to come.
Some of them sent in by you.
Press the red button.
Join us on Locals.
Right now that we're deeply embedded in Rumble.
Why the hell did you leave Fox?
Tell us the truth.
What are you not permitted to say?
Tell us, tell us.
So do you think they sacked you because of Jan 6?
Do you think they sacked you because you're too anti-establishment, too anti-war?
Tell us.
I honestly don't know.
I will say, you know, my views changed dramatically over the course of 20 years.
As I've said many times, I was a kind of half-hearted booster of the war in Iraq, which is hard to believe.
But, you know, that was in 2003.
And so my views for the last 20 years have been, and I realized, and I repented of that, I feel sick even thinking about it now, but my views have remained pretty much the same for the last 20 years.
They've evolved, you know, as things have changed, but in general, I've been skeptical of the storylines and all kinds of different things, and I certainly was for the 14 years I was at Fox.
And they were always, they didn't agree with me, of course, I don't think, but they were always very nice to me and they always let me say what I wanted.
Not one time did they tell me not to say anything.
So I was always grateful to Fox and I am in retrospect grateful to Fox for that.
So that never changed up until the moment they called me and said, you know, we're taking the show off the air.
And so I can only speculate.
I know, but I do think as a general matter, not even about me, the war in Ukraine is a red line for For a lot of people in business and politics.
And you see it in our politics in the U.S.
where the leaders of the Republican Party in the Congress, who really are repulsive in my view, are now supporting sending cluster bombs to Ukraine.
Ukraine is losing the war, obviously.
The United States could, and Ukrainians are dying in huge numbers, and the country's being destroyed.
And so the U.S.
could force a peace like tonight.
They could.
Uniquely, they have that power.
Um, and they won't.
And they're continuing to allow Ukrainians to be killed and the country to be devastated.
So, um, I don't know their motive.
I can only guess, but I know that if you criticize that, they, they really are intent on making you be quiet.
With the pandemic being reframed in such a short period of time and with this cultural amnesia always being... Has it been reframed?
In a sense it has, like we now know that there were no clinical trials for transmission,
that 96% of people that are asymptomatic cannot spread the disease, that there were considerable
like myocarditis, all of that, that lockdowns didn't work.
You're making me feel bad for getting all those shots.
That the 6 feet to 10 feet was arbitrary, and now we're looking, and now already we're
being invited to kind of forget that that sort of happened.
And with Biden inadvertently saying Iraq instead of Ukraine, do you feel that these kind of
Freudian errors are simply because in time we will regard this conflict in the way we
regarded Iraq?
This is not to say not sympathetic towards Ukrainian people, but that it was war primarily motivated by the interests of
the military-industrial complex, the stated plan for BlackRock to rebuild Ukraine in a
comparable way that Halliburton were able to exploit the conflict in Iraq,
and indeed a secondary agenda to diminish Russia's capacity to be a superpower on the world stage.
Do you think these things will become explicit and broadly accepted?
And in a similar way, the people that have been rallying for war, using peculiar tropes that we always assume to be
of the right of patriotism and a lack of alliance, Do you think that those people will undergo some kind of
reckoning, Tucker?
I hope so.
I mean, the key to joy and wisdom is admitting that you're not God.
That is the key.
That's the key to life, in my opinion.
Admitting you're not God.
And if you can't do that, you are doomed.
Because you're not God, by the way.
That's a fact that you can't change.
You are not God.
Okay?
Period.
Breaking news for me.
Hit me pretty hard, that one.
That's the moment.
That's my take home.
Oh, okay.
Well, that's it.
I'm out!
It's essential to happiness and to honesty to admit when you're wrong.
And it's so freeing.
I mean, it's the basis of the recovery movement.
I realized I was powerless.
And I just have lived that.
And I understand very well, personally, the human impulse to hide being wrong.
No one wants to admit being wrong because in so doing you admit you lack the power that you pretended that you had.
But I just find it so liberating I was wrong.
I thought this, it turned out not to be true.
I was wrong.
I didn't know.
I am not God.
Once you say that, everything, then you realize you have nothing to be afraid of.
By the way, everybody already knows what you're lying about.
People know who you are.
I tell my children this all the time.
You think you're getting away with it.
I'm secretly whatever it is.
Everybody already knows.
And they love you anyway, or they hate you anyway.
It doesn't matter.
We know because we can smell.
We're like dogs.
We know who the other person is instantly.
All the pretense is pointless.
And so how beautiful is it to just say, nope, here's who I am.
Yeah.
And they can't, and I look at someone like Tony Blinken, who's our Secretary of State, who's obviously way over his head, not a genius, but probably above average in cleverness, but not, you know, he's not like a great statesman or a great person or whatever.
And he feels, you just watch him on television, he feels this burden to pretend, I'm Secretary of State, I got it all under control.
You have no freaking idea, Tony Blinken!
Like, you have no idea what's gonna happen.
You've been wrong again and again and again, but you can't admit it.
So you're terrified of being exposed.
And what- and this is- I'm not attacking Tony Blinken or singling him out.
I hope not unfairly.
This is where we all find ourselves.
God, I hope nobody knows!
You know, whatever it is!
I'm secretly gay, or I gained 20 pounds, or I'm actually very vain.
Everyone already knows.
Calm down.
Just admit it.
And I hope people who are wrong about COVID can take the life-affirming path of admitting.
The dignity preserving.
When you admit you're wrong, you actually preserve your dignity.
When you continue to lie, you lose your dignity.
People don't get that.
They think it's the opposite.
Oh, I have to... No, I was... Actually, I was kind of, you know... Stop the bullshit.
We all know.
Admit it and become fully human.
Then you can respect yourself.
How can you respect yourself if you're lying?
You can't.
This is, I believe, the undergirding idea of perennialism by Aldous Huxley in where he contrasts various theologies and notes that the primary idea, whether it's in the Vedas or coming from Meister Eckhart, is this transcendence of self.
The acknowledgement that this vessel, this idea, this synaptic crash of self This mess of memory and projection can be transcended through and via a connection to God.
And this I was wrong ultimately becomes I was irrelevant.
The rustleness is irrelevant.
There is a way through this.
There is a pathway.
The denial of this transcendence, or even this imminent relationship with a higher power, a higher force, defines our age of materialism, rationalism.
All things can be measured in ways.
This is why you have lumpen and brutal block buildings, abundant and an annihilation of elegant thatch.
Yes!
Because there are challenges to our power.
The idea that a flower is more beautiful than anything we could create and that a white pine is more enduring than anything we will ever build Like, that's such a challenge.
The idea that there are mysteries we can't explain?
Yes.
This is why they call you a conspiracy nut.
This is why they become hysterical when you raise questions that challenge their version of events.
Because what you're really doing, it's not even about January 6th or UFOs or the Kennedy assassination.
It's about revealing their limits.
Yes.
They don't have the answers and they can't admit it because admitting that they don't have the answers is the same as admitting they're not God.
And I'm only saying that's the most liberating thing you can do.
It's curious how it can be distilled to something so identifiably personal.
I saw you once interview someone who went, no, no, I do the same!
I do the same!
Like when you were talking about gun laws or something.
In a way, people want feudal power.
People want total power.
I want absolute dominion over my life.
But there now is, of course, a tendency to mask this intention.
The idea that this is for your security.
This is for your safety.
We are trying to help you.
This is what sort of busted me up, Tucker, during that whole... Just goose step for me!
Stop lying!
What's the big deal?
We just marched through Nuremberg!
Totally true, though!
I'm more comfortable with just put on a uniform and point a gun at me.
Stop telling me it's for my own good.
You're lying.
Like, I know that's not true.
Well, authoritarianism necessarily had to become veiled.
Those kind of optics of the rallies and the flags was identifiably a problem.
But the urge and the will to power has remained consistent.
Of course.
I suppose in a sense where we appear to align very strongly is we don't like being told what to do, that we're willing to surrender, willing to learn, willing to take on new ideas.
A few more just little personal questions.
They're not personal, they're about your career.
How do you feel about the FBI hacking your phone, mate, with the Putin thing and being called a Putin puppet?
A Putin puppet?
The Putin puppet thing I've never taken seriously.
I am a passionate Tolstoy fan.
No, he dates Putin, by the way.
I love Tolstoy, and I mean that.
The Kreutzer Sonatas.
I just read it.
It's an amazing book.
Is that that thing where you talk about Christianity?
Have you read them essays on Christianity?
Oh, of course I have.
And I'm not sure I quite agree that Kreutzer's snot is all about how sex is bad, which I strongly disagree with.
But it's just he's just an amazing writer.
But that's I've never been to Russia.
I don't speak the language.
I have no special.
I mean, the whole thing is insane, by the way.
I've always, I mean, that never bothered me because I'm the most American, I'm so American it's like a joke.
Yeah, you are really American.
I'm the most American person I've ever met for good and good.
You're so American, you've been here so, ever since you've arrived on the premises, you've been so American, you're shaking people, and American just turned up inadvertently just by, magnetized by you.
Asking people personal questions.
I'm from Sacramento, how are you, where do you live?
You're being all American everywhere, spilling your Americana up everything.
That's so true, it's so, and it, Exactly.
For good and bad.
Mostly bad.
I want to ask you an important question, I think.
There's nothing to suggest that the state of nation is a permanent one.
It's a relatively recent advent.
It's pretty plain that one of the ways that the cultural war can be continually Leveraged, even issues where I imagine you have strong views, and indeed these are arguments that define your country, certainly more than mine, although everyone's affected by them.
Pro-gun versus gun control.
Pro-choice versus pro-life.
The identity politics issues.
Are we ever, as a, you know, there's nothing in our evolution that would suggest we should live in countries of 300 million people all following a single credo.
Isn't it necessary and indeed obvious that this ulterior driving energy, be that through technology or different forms of identification.
I mean, imagine if like 2000 years ago, you'd grabbed someone from Iceland and someone from Sudan and someone from London and said, right, you lot, you're all the same, live together.
According to one, it'd be an absurd thing to do.
So aren't we, isn't it, obvious and necessary that what has to change is the nature
of democracy itself and would you and I guess I imagine I can
Guess because you've said about you know shootings a hobby of yours. You've already said that you are
anti-abortion Would you be willing to as it were stand on an ideological
if not political ticket with people that had opposite views on you when it came to like trans and
raising kids trans and stuff like that if If it meant that you and your community would be completely at liberty to raise your children and run your community how you wanted to.
Well, of course.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, I mean, I have no plans to stand for office.
Is that same as running for office?
Yeah, we stand.
You stand.
We run.
We're English.
I've come here.
Now I'll be here for a while.
Simply elect me.
Hey, can I have some power?
America, we run as fast as we can.
Sprinting about, gathering up them donations.
But of course, and by the way, I mean, the real, like the Tower of Babel didn't work for a reason.
That is commentary on, you know, written by the ancient Hebrews 3,000 years ago, but still a sort of deep commentary on people and how to organize a society.
And like, human differences, I said at the outset, people are united in their value.
I think their value, each person's value is identical because they're all created by the creator.
But people are different.
I mean they are.
I have four children.
They're not all the same, right?
People are different.
And they kind of live the way they want to live and it's sort of any effort to make them live In ways that you want them to live, that they don't want to live, like is doomed to concentration camps kind of in the end.
Like you need to use a lot of force to make people change basic habits that they've decided they want.
So that suggests to me much smaller administrative zones or countries or whatever you want to call them.
The problem is technology makes it really easy to manipulate huge groups of people.
To drive out here from London, my driver's from Brazil.
A country I love.
It's very similar to the United States in a lot of ways.
And she's from Southern Brazil.
And I said, are there Brazilians in London?
Yeah, but most are from the north.
Do you see them?
No, I don't see them.
I don't, I don't trust them.
I don't like them.
Oh, they're from southern, they're from northern Brazil.
Okay.
And I said, well, why don't you split into two countries?
And she said, everybody wants to, but we can't because we've got a central government and it's not in their interest.
And I thought that's the story of a lot of the world.
It really is that like, I have a lot in common with my neighbors.
I lived on a street in Washington for many years where I had, I think everyone on the street voted differently from the way I vote.
We had, there were a bunch of different races on the street, and I felt like we had a lot in common.
And I think everyone on the street felt that way about everyone else because it was our street!
Do you know what I mean?
So like, we would have been a pretty good self-governing country of, you know, 11 houses or whatever in Northwest DC because we had this fundamental thing in common, which is geography.
And I do think ultimately we'll get back to that because I think it's a much more natural way.
Loose alliances of small places is a much more natural way to govern, in my opinion.
But we're a long way from that.
Yes, and it seems that the homogeneity ultimately is driven by systems of dominion and the requirement for profit.
Exactly.
And that the ideology is secondary and its function is to create division.
That's its point.
Even when we as a team start talking about, how do we talk to Tucker about trans issues, cultural issues?
When we're talking about it, we start saying, oh, it's difficult, isn't it?
Like, you know, as soon as we start talking about trans athletes or virtue signaling
or positive affirmation, it becomes, in a sense, it becomes divisive.
My personal position is, like, the way I raise, I wanna raise my children how I wanna raise my children.
Of course, you have to immediately caveat that with, of course, there are some areas where you think,
well, what if people are mistreating their children in ways that are obvious?
You immediately have to asterisk that.
But that aside, I wanna raise my children how i wanna raise my children i don't anybody else telling
me how to raise my And I recognize that the price of that is other people are going to raise their children how they want to.
And the aesthetics of that and the descriptions of that are almost none of my business.
Well, I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
I mean, I, yeah, I mean, that's a whole separate, you know, the question of whether you should be told how to raise your children by people who don't have children.
Which is where we wind up now.
Yeah, no, I couldn't agree more.
Okay, so here we are.
Is it possible for anyone left in the mainstream media to say what they think?
That's from At Lorna, who's one of our followers on Locals.
I can answer that really clearly, no.
I mean, you can within certain boundaries.
You know, like, you can be against Bud Light, or for Bud Light, or whatever, but you can't say, Ukraine is not a democracy, so stop saying we're fighting for democracy.
You cannot say that.
No one does.
Hey, this is from at sunpatchpatriot.
With all these conspiracy theories coming out as true, is there anything that's still covered up that you think holds weight?
You know, now that they have more information about UFOs and stuff, do you think there's anything that's not been uncovered that you... Yeah!
Biden just reclassified the Kennedy documents 60 years after his assassination.
No one, even peripherally involved, is still alive.
So what could possibly be the sources and methods that were supposedly showing the world by declassifying these are so outdated they're irrelevant.
They were using disappearing ink in 1963.
So why in the world would we be continuing to hide the truth about the Kennedy assassination 60 years later?
And of course the answer is obvious because it implicates not individuals but institutions.
And reveals them as complicit in a murder and in the overthrow of the U.S.
government.
And the U.S.
government is complicit in the overthrow of the U.S.
government.
And that's the truth.
I know that for a fact because I interviewed someone who saw the documents.
Um, and so, you know, we have a long way... Look, the bottom line is, unless there is a compelling reason that relates to imminent physical security of citizens, we should never hide the truth from the population in a democracy.
Period.
Because that is incompatible with democracy.
Secrecy is incompatible with democracy.
How can I... I'm running the government, but you can't tell me what the government's doing?
That's not democracy.
That's something else.
And don't insult me by calling it a democracy, because it's very much not.
And so, yes, there is much that remains secret.
I'm not going to speculate.
You don't need to be conspiracy nut.
In the United States, we have over a billion federal documents that remain classified.
A billion!
Going back to the Second World War.
So, that's a democracy?
That is not a democracy.
It's just not!
Tell me how it is!
Yes, in a sense, the very category of classified, except in matters of national security, obviously indicates a kind of parental relationship.
You used the metaphor... Yes, thank you.
That's exactly... I'm stealing that.
That's exactly... it indicates a parental relationship.
That's right.
And I didn't sign up for that.
We're locking the bedroom door.
You can't know what's happening in here.
Yeah.
I want to know what's going on in there.
Although when I did look once, it was disgusting.
Listen, we're going to do a little bit on locals.
So if you're watching this on locals right now, you're welcome.
We'll see you in a second.
Press the red button on the bottom of your screen and join us in locals.
We're going to play true or false.
Not true and false.
That's complex.
Oh, my God.
It's simultaneously true and false.
You're now enlightened.
Welcome.
Welcome to the limitless bliss that was always within you all along.
You can follow Tucker on Twitter, obviously, at Tucker Carlson, where you can see upcoming interviews with Ice Cube and the Tate Brothers.
Yeah, maybe I'll ask you about that.
Great.
and them tape brothers. We're going to go over to locals now. Press the red button on
your screen. We'll just chat for about 10 minutes. Also, I'm in a pull up competition
with RFK. I've got, I've got beat RFK at a pull up competition to raise a hundred grand.
You can donate by going to kennedy24.com/pullup. He's going to kill me. Have you seen he's
mad white? Look at his arms, Tucker. His arms are thicker than my torso. He's 69 years old.
Look at the bar he's using.
It's like a murder weapon.
How can I compete with that?
I'm never going to get there.
We've already got up to 21 grand.
So 24 grand.
If you don't want me to have a competition with this man who will plainly win, donate to that campaign.
If you're watching us on Locals, we'll see you in a second for a little more chat.
Join us next week, though, not for more of the same.
We'd never insult you with that crap, but for more of the different.
