As IF Times

link: https://thepostmillennial.com/tucker-carlson-may-face-eu-travel-sanctions-as-a-result-of-putin-interview-report

An amusing phenomenon that the majority of men will be familiar with is the situation wherein they are walking down a street next to their wife/girlfriend.

An attractive female approaches them and the man is obligated to avert his eyes, or at the very least, pretend not to notice the oncoming potential tempest.  Wearing mirrored glasses won’t be of any help.

As most men know, to even hint that they find the oncoming female of any interest is to invite an episode of instant rebuke, or in some cases, a prolonged sulk later on the part of the wife/girlfriend.

What most women don’t understand is that the perceived comeliness of the approaching female has very little to do with any attraction on the part of the male.  It could be a bear on bicycle and the novelty of that alone would pique the man’s interest.  Still, the majority of men will experience the hissy fit that will ensue in the aftermath of the encounter.

Amusingly, a similar situation is occurring now as Tucker Carlson makes his way to Moscow to interview the leader of the Red Menace, Vladimir Putin.  The majority of the traditional western media outlets are having a hissy fit that would make the Rousey/Carmouche UFC fight look like a game of slap slap.

Accustomed to being the guardians of what the masses hear and dictating to them what to think, it’s now considered the highest affront that Tucker dares to intrude on their sacred dominion.  Reactions have ranged from horrified to outright maliciousness with some even proposing that Tucker be sanctioned or even prevented from coming back into the US because of his treasonous actions. If it’s one thing we know the media is good at, it’s hyperbole.

There is likely much fear and angst in the general media ranks; and which is shared by the political cabal that has for decades been successful in providing the accepted narrative of the day; in this case, the characterization of Vladimir Putin.  Why wouldn’t any rational person be willing to assess the facts for themselves via direct information rather than through the filter of approved channels?  The public has for the longest time been treated like children on topics of all kinds.  How do we know it’s so? Because we told you so. Eerily, the courts system seems to be moving that way.

It’s not as if there’s no precedence for interviews with all sorts of world figures. Celebrated ‘journalists’ in the past such as Barbara Walters, Mike Wallace and others have carried sessions with the entire range of political leaders from despots to allies and these interviews were considered journalism and newsworthy.  Was Dan Rather considered treasonous for his Saddam Hussein piece?  Was Barbara Walters’ interview of Fidel Castro a despicable career event?

In the ‘free’ west, we have an impression of Vladimir Putin solely from the narrative given to us by the mass media and likely encouraged by the political overlords.  Oddly, this is precisely the criticism leveled against the Russian news agency, Pravda and the network, Russian Television.  People who live in glass houses and all that.

The last few years have provided definitive proof that official media narratives here are coordinated and laughably not objective.  As that revelation occurs, it also calls into question much of the other narratives spewed over the decades, including the characterization of which states are allies and which states are enemies.  There’s buzz that our ‘ally’ Ukraine has a target out for Tucker because of his pending interview.  With ‘friends’ like that…..

There’s nothing that would have stopped any of the regular media outlets from gaining an interview with Putin.  They chose not to because it would have pushed against their established narrative of Putin, bad.  We’ve been told that he’s a tyrant who runs the country like his kingdom and who imprisons enemies and rigs elections.  So, in the spirit of real journalism, Tucker goes to find out for himself.  That’s pretty radical in this time of packaged narratives.  Like the passing female in the opening paragraph, we don’t know if it’s any good, but there’s no harm in looking.

link:  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/claudine-gay-harvard-universitys-embattled-president-stepping-rcna131930

By now, the news headlines have subsided but the controversy  lingers.  Claudine Gay has resigned from her position as the president of the august Harvard University under increasing public pressure, not to mention evidence, that she had improperly inflated her academic credentials.  Specifically, other academics have revealed that much of her academic work was plagiarized from their work without acknowledgment.  In her resignation letter, which we assume she wrote herself, she blames racism as the source of her outing, not her academic shortcomings. Ironic, since racism was likely the reason for her appointment.

In the wake of this revelation, the entire industry of DEI: Diversity, Equality, Inclusion, is now under closer scrutiny.  This movement grotesquely invaded institutions at all levels over the past generation led by government policies and which then became de facto mandates at all large corporations.  These mandates are of course another manifestation of people living in fantasy rather than accepting reality. The absurdity of quotas based only on race or other characteristic deemed favorable as a means of postings or promotion in society can only happen in the human world. While humans may occupy the top of the pyramid in the animal world, a certain gene exists within us that is innately self-destructive as if we had a built in limiting mode.   We may wonder what happened to cause the sudden disappearance of prosperous civilizations such as the Aztecs or the Romans; perhaps this is a clue.

When policies are promulgated to promote mediocrity over efficacy, the natural order of rational behavior is cast aside for the preferred objective of emotional gratification.  Rational people can accept that actions lead to consequences, whether or not those consequences are desirable.  In our modern time of vast access to information and knowledge, this truth should be self-evident and yet, denying observable realities is the acceptable norm.

It’s hard to fault Gay, since she was bright enough to work within a system that actively encouraged her ascension through the ranks by understanding the milieu of her environment.  Clearly she didn’t need to run the academic gauntlet since the fix was already in.  Her profile fit the narrative…except that the MOST important aspect, academic excellence, was clearly not a consideration.  This phenomenon is clearly played out in thousands of employment scenarios throughout our modern society, **cough, cough Karine Jean-Pierre** The infamous ‘Peter Principle’ is rampant throughout our society but with the modern twist of social entitlement.  Claudine Gay is not the issue. The issue is the zeitgeist that promotes this activity.  Gay is the desired result of such zeitgeist.

Interestingly, this ties into the most massive change embarking upon mankind, the rise of Artificial Intelligence, specifically with the popularity of such as Chat GPT.

Most people think of Chat GPT as computer generated solutions.  In fact, this powerful program actually searches and collates KNOWN articles and solutions to assemble a response for the user. In other words, it’s essentially an advanced search engine.  It draws upon the vast body of knowledge already known in order to produce a ‘solution’.  For example, if you were to pose the question of how to build a bridge, you would get all kinds of responses based on what humans have already done.  But this will not take into account possible advances in technology which would make these responses obsolete.  If you were to pose ‘how to live forever’, there would be no solution since no data exists on this. What you would probably get are compilations from articles written on longevity by….humans.

Thus, original work and research by humans must be encouraged in order for humans to progress.  It is not enough to regurgitate what is already known. This is precisely why the likes of Claudine Gay and our present social environment of entitlement is so dangerous.  This kind of irrational thinking and spurious credentials have far reaching destructive consequences for all.  Injudicious use of such as Chat GPT will result in many more intellectual frauds to shape our societies based only on their membership in the right demographic. It’s the manifestation of the old computer expression, GIGO; garbage in, garbage out.  Imagine the combination of DEI and ChatGPT.  Now that’s truly frightening.

As it happens, the luster of a Harvard association was lost long ago when such intellectual giants as Al Gore, Brian Stelter and Lori Lightfoot were included onto their roster.  It has become the home of failed politicians and propagandists.  Which begs the question; where will Claudine go?