The title unavoidably comes off like a slam against Tucker, but I do not mean it that way. I think he's more or less a normal person caught up in circumstances far beyond his control and is trying to do what's best in a murky situation.
First off, if anyone reading this does not or cannot believe that Julian Assange is either dead or--equivalently--in a black site he'll probably never come out of, then stop reading now because it will just make you upset and feel you need to argue about it for your own emotional stability.
The real Assange has been gone since October 2016, and everything after that has been DeepFakes and a modicum of simple hand-waving. Sounds primitive but it's fooled virtually everyone in the world. I suspect that Tucker might have had half an idea something was up and finally went to check it out.
Tucker Carlson Makes Surprise Visit to Julian Assange in Prison (TGP 11/2/2023)
Read that carefully. The only evidence really shown is Tucker and Assange's (fake) wife walking through a parking lot. All the rest I could have written up off the top of my head.
And that's it. No confirmation. No update. No "stay tuned for my upcoming interview". Nothing for nearly two months.
What was really going on? I think Tucker realized or had it confirmed there that Assange was dead. What to do? Well, let's see: a journalist was disappeared seven years ago and no one in the world realizes it. The most memorable factoid from that time was that Pam Anderson brought him a sandwich. Tucker himself is also a journalist, isn't he? Hey, how about a sandwich?
Anyway, it's not real clear that this is just something you go public with. Aside from the obvious, basically no normies and only a handful of conspiracists would even entertain the idea, let alone weigh the evidence. Is there a clear moral or ethical act? I don't think so.
So Tucker just punts, and that gives us today's article:
"It's Disgusting What They're Doing": Tucker Carlson Describes Visit With Julian Assange (ZH 12/23/2023)
If you deconstruct it, it's a few thin lies and the rest is a recap of "The Julian Assange Story" you could write up off his Wikipedia page. No video, no audio, no pictures. It didn't take Tucker two months to put the package together, it's the work of an afternoon.
Remember when they interviewed Manson in prison, several times? Tucker didn't even bother faking a selfie because that would be too deceitful. But let's look at the thin veneer put on for believability. For example, how did the guy look?
"Assange looks like press photographs of him, maybe older, pale, he hasn't been outside in 13 years..."
Oh, he did? Well, we've been told over and over about his physical and emotional decline over the years, and two years ago we were told this:
‘Looks very awful and ill’: Journalist tells RT he ‘couldn’t recognize’ Assange during High Court hearing on his extradition to US (RT 8/11/2021)
So that was a body double or just another outright lie. But if we assume it was him, maybe he's been working out, getting fit, and eating well at Belmarsh, right?
"The inmates are treated like animals."
Okay, enough of that. Well, what did "Julian" have to say, then?
"We talked about why he is in prison...."
The real Julian Assange was a smart, worldly, sensitive, passionate and articulate journalist, and after all that's gone on in the world since he's been "in prison", this is all he has to talk about with one of the world's highest profile journalists? We don't even know if he supports Trump or not!
Which brings up what finally occurred to me as the most significant continuing evidence Julian Assange is dead: Is he being held incommunicado? Is that even legal in any country? Everyone talks about extradition but no one mentions this?Doesn't he make and receive phone calls or letters? Is there a single person known to be in communication with him?
I guess even these guys gave up three years ago, after this tweet:
“This is not normal. @amnesty is almost always granted access to monitor court cases around the world. For our legal observer to find out this morning that he has not been granted even REMOTE access to the #Assange proceedings is an outrage.
He got married--or so we are told--but how is it his wife has no messages to pass on? No interview with Tucker about his situation or his persecution? Of course not. She's just a prop with limited dialogue.
A final reflection: If you've read this far, I hope you see that the point is not anything about Julian Assange, who, after all, was just one man in a world where thousands are outrageously slaughtered by various methodologies every single day.
Rather, think about how far the rest of the world is from this kind of information. You've joined me on the high vantage at the top of Everest. A commanding view, but very lonely, is it not?
And the analogy totally breaks down if you choose to tell anyone what you've seen from the top of that mountain: "Mount What? Doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, it cannot exist. That's science, dumbfuck."
100% this.
I just learned about this Tucker story tonight on Twitter, and the feeling it gave me was that feeling in the movies when somebody is talking to a supposed good guy and then the good guy says some thing that they shouldn't know and the protagonist's hair stands up, etc. I don't know what to think about Tucker, but it freaks me out that they are pretending to have Julian alive and it freaks me out even more that Tucker is now going along with it.
Don't know how true it is that Tucker was seen at Comet Ping-Pong semi-regularly, but i know he shit pretty hard on people who questioned the government's 9/11 narrative.
i've never seen/heard him break anything genuinely knew, that people who regularly perused here, /pol/, GLP, or even r/conspiracy hadn't known for at least a few weeks. i'm fairly certain his role is as a wrangler to corral/herd independent thinkers on the right/alt-right, just like elizabeth warren and rachel maddow are for the left.
Truth. I like the stuff he says, but I feel exactly the same way, like he's just a really good controlled opposition.
That RT article made me think the same thing. Setting up an announcement for the future of him passing away peacefully in his cell.
That's just the thing: if any of it was real, isn't that what Tucker should have asked, and what Julian would have wanted to talk about?
I’ve always wondered if Assange was deep state too. Used as a ploy to discourage internet leakers. Don’t share any information about things or you could find yourself living in the Ethiopian embassy for a while.
The evidence was never strong against him as to whether he was actually controlled opposition. Virtually always with those types there are red flags clearly visible but I never came across any with Assange.
His case and others have created for me a more subtle concept of how "They" actually implement their plans through agents such as one might suspect Assange was. That is, it's nothing so crude as that you'd find his name on the payroll of the CIA or WEF. Rather it's through handlers and influence, like how a magnet attracts or repels but never needs to touch.
So we might believe Assange was one of these "lifetime actors", but the crucial point is that they're also free-range. While living it, one cannot help but absorb at least some of it, and I think that every now and then one of them wanders clear out of the pasture.
MLK Jr. was a perfect example of one of those, and virtually no one sees the nuance of his career. Did he begin as a phony-ass commie with Jew handlers and so forth? Sure. But over time, he became what he portrayed, and began believing war was bad, and that all people could and should live in brotherhood. Unacceptable, of course, and he was retired with a fake assassination.
With Assange and Wikileaks, though, I saw a couple of factors I felt were decisive on the controlled op question. One is that he brought up the very radioactive subject of Seth Rich when he didn't need to. The other was that there was a rash of mysterious deaths involving several of the key Wikileaks personnel just before Assange himself was disappeared. So even if WL was controlled at the start, it got out of control and had to be shut down by forceful means.
Personally, I never followed the doings of Wikileaks because I'm very lazy and figured it would filter through eventually if it was really important. And in the meantime, I found that all the important truths about the world--the things people really needed to know about just WTF had been and was going on--was already out there somewhere. Almost everyone was either not interested or actively rejected it.
So that observation was kinda the ultimate secret revelation.
iirc, MLK had started talking more and more about economic issues in the months prior to being assassinated
You know what I find really interesting is that if you have the idea in mind that MLK was an asset who became a liability in a larger social engineering program, your hindsight becomes sharp enough for the faultlines, as the one you mention, to come in to focus.
If you go back to MLK's most famous speech, 1963's "I Have a Dream" given during the "March on Washington", you can see the one on economic issues. If pressed, the progressives might mention that King himself said he had come to "cash a check". But what he said was:
Explicitly metaphorical. A bit later he adds:
IDK if he had it consciously in mind, but he recognized that prosperity is the result of freedom. They he was asking for freedom--only as we all have a right to--and the prosperity would then come on it's own.
But on the flip side, the full name of the event was the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom". It was put on by A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, a couple of socialists.
We can guess without even needing to research that these two were just another couple of change agents. One of them was a commie and the other was a gay commie. It all seems so familiar, doesn't it? BLM is just a reboot of the franchise.
Later, we see from King what no black person would be allowed to say today and remain uncanceled:
If you read his full speech, it is possible to feel that some sort of economic repairs might indeed be consistent with the "reconstitution" of black people, sort of putting them back on their feet, a real check for his metaphorical check.
What I find notable in the present day is this: the last person to suggest such a thing was Donald Trump, with his "Platinum Plan" that has been flushed from consciousness. So with MLK as an asset, they shuffle him off the stage and he remains a (silent) hero. With DJT not an asset, harsher measures are in order and they will do anything to silence him.