For his recent episode, Tucker Carlson revisits a former guest, Mike Rowe. Mr. Rowe has good and humorous sense of curiosity about things, about stuff, about the real world around us, and he provides good context for examination of this pretending world that swirls our orbit at a speed greater than we can grasp.
Toward the end of this segment, Rowe is asked the oft familiar question, “Where does all this go,” and his answer opens the door to other avenues I happen to agree with. WATCH:
In response to the ‘where does all this end’ question, Rowe notes that at a certain point everything becomes personal, and in the larger context all outcomes have to manifest in reality. I concur with Rowe on many levels, and a great example of that esoteric -v- reality position can be found all around us in the sphere of geopolitics and manipulation.
Think about the White House and State Dept message at the very beginning of Russia’s military operation in Eastern Ukraine. Do you remember the White House briefing when questioned about “where this will end”? {Background}
Deputy National Security Advisor and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, Daleep Singh, was presented at the podium on the day of Russia’s first moves into Ukraine, to explain the strategic policy of the Biden administration toward Russia.
…”Ultimately, the goal of our sanctions is to make this a strategic failure for Russia; and let’s define a little bit of what that means. Strategic success in the 21st century is not about a physical land grab of territory; that’s what Putin has done. In this century, strategic power is increasingly measured and exercised by economic strength, by technological sophistication and your story – who you are, what your values are; can you attract ideas and talent and goodwill? And on each of those measures, this will be a failure for Russia.” (Video Link)
What Daleep Singh said was essentially that Biden policy toward Russia boiled down geopolitical power to a cultural issue of social likeability.
President Putin was also asked about NATO’s likely response, and his reply was more akin to ‘What is the West going to do, put tanks in the forest’?
The disparity between the Biden response and the Putin response can be looked at as esoteric vs realist.
At a certain point in the real world, if you want to change something, you have to physically act upon it.
NATO could gnash their teeth, try to diminish the Russian economy from the sanction approach, and shout at the diplomatic corps. However, so long as words were the answer, the physical reality of the situation would never change. This was the baseline for Putin’s confidence.
The same thing can be said for this collective Western effort to financially control all the citizens within the region. At a certain point the talk becomes action, and that action then creates an outcome.
Mike Tyson famously said, “Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face.” The same may be true for the plans and schemes of the globalists.
Can the triggering of their plan be stopped? I think that’s arguably, doubtful; people are just complacent. However, in the outcome phase, will the consequences of that globalist plan be accepted? That’s where I’m cautiously more optimistic the people impacted will punch the globalists in the mouth.
I’m not sure we can vote our way out of this in advance, but I am more confident we can punch our way to victory.
Additionally, if you look at what the globalists are doing, punch-avoidance-planning is consuming a lot of their time.
The need for control is a reaction to fear.
