As IF Times

link: https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/uk-authorities-threaten-extradition-jail-to-us-citizens-for-online-posts-stoking-riots-social-media-elon-musk-x-stabbing-taylor-swift-themed-event-children-dead-prime-minister-police-laws-free-speech

In many cultures in which there is a rich written history, one will find writings which are allegorical in nature. For example in Chinese, Japanese and Indian literature, we find stories and fables which at first pass are amusing but with deeper inspection, one will find plenty of hidden, often thinly veiled political references. Why was this?  Well for one thing, many ancient cultures had rather repressive regimes and any overt criticism of the rulers would likely lead to being disappeared from society.  These rulers imagined themselves to be kings of the world, or at least those parts that mattered, thus any negativity against them was frowned upon. One could not just paint ‘the king sucks’ on the side of a castle.

Thus, it was often through the use of allegory and fables in which artists made their points but it had to be framed in such a way that it could be excused as just entertainment without being linked directly to state criticism.  Of course, you had to expect that the autocrats wouldn’t be bright enough to figure it out. Many of the fables in Aesop’s Fables give timeless lessons and wisdom on human nature, desires and morality but often with hidden political meaning.  Western writers also contributed to this style of narrative.

Certainly some of the most notable works in this genre are by George Orwell and Ayn Rand.  Animal Farm, 1984 and Atlas Shrugged are timeless works on the proclivities of man and governments which seem all the more pertinent today.

This tradition is also evident in the west by activist music artists as they sneak messages of protest and complaint in the lyrics of their compositions.  Most don’t even know the theme of the songs until they delve into the specific lines.  An example would be “The End of The Innocence” by the Eagles in the 1980’s, an oblique critique against the Reagan years.

Over time, these types of ‘protest art’ have enriched all societies with their timeless messages and artistry.  As the world became less dominated by autocratic rulers who chafed at every imagined slight against them, criticisms of government became less oblique and in fact quite direct and pointed….at least in the West. It’s not uncommon to find images and representations of un-popular leaders depicted as all kinds of unflattering animals. Everyone in the public space was fair game.

But recently, we’ve seen a distinct thinning of the skin of those in charge (no doubt because of climate change). Increasingly, those in charge are taking umbrage at any criticism of their edicts and narratives and begin to take action or threatening to take action against any who would dare question the official narrative. The very most recent example is a functionary from Great Britain, a police commissioner named Rowley, who has threatened to reach across the oceans and prosecute and imprison anyone daring to criticize their narratives.  Though not a king, this man imagines himself to be Lord of his imaginary realm. Comically, this from the land of Monty Python which is now not only not Great, but also becoming less Britain.  It’s the equivalent of ‘I’ll cut you man!”

We can understand the frustration of those in charge since their hold on the compliant mass media has collapsed.  While there are still adherents to legacy media outlets, other sources, notably the X platform, Truth Social and Gab are now sources of real, unfiltered information without the attendant gas-lighting built into all state media.  Thanks to brave people such as Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson and recently freed Julian Assange, the real truth is exposed for all to see.

This is a sea change for information and media as the Barney Fifes of the media world flail away trying to preserve their once powerful hold over people’s views. I can imagine they’ll come up with all kinds of ridiculous methods to censor people such as charging for the use of the alphabet.  Orwell was correct.  There’s always going to be the big scale tyrant wanna-be’s but it’s the little tyrants  and bootlickers that cause the most daily grief. They seem to multiply like cold sores at an orgy and are just as hard to be rid of.

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.