Keep Your Eyes Closed to the Truth of January 6th
The Mainstream Push to Ignore New Evidence that Contradicts the Narrative of That Day
After Fox News host Tucker Carlson released new video footage of the protests on January 6th, 2021, which was obtained by Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, government officials, the corporate media, and liberal pundits came out in a firestorm of condemnation. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that anyone who had eyes to see would see that what they were seeing from the new footage was not what they were seeing. The day was an “attack on our democracy,” end of story. The narrative that the day was violent and an insurrection has already been created, and the new facts are irrelevant to a public that has its mind made up. What kind of 1984 world are we living in?
New York Senator Chuck Schumer went on a propagandistic rant to condemn Tucker Carlson for releasing the new material, and he urged Fox News not to allow for a second night of reporting on the matter. He falsely suggested that Carlson reduced it to simply a “peaceful sightseeing tour” and that the new video footage was a “lie.” Was it really a lie, though? Even in the “most shameful hours” of coverage, the reporter admitted that there were “hooligans” who committed vandalism. He has called out violence of the protesters in the past, so is it not Schumer who is lying and twisting what Carlson actually said?
Aside from Schumer’s unrelated issues that he has with Fox News and the ongoing lawsuit over voting machines (is it not whataboutism that some of us are charged with when it comes to issues like the Ukraine war?), he tried to claim that Carlson had “disdain” for Americans because he released actual video footage of the day. Yet, his party literally withheld the inconvenient footage for two years. How do Schumer and his party not have contempt for the American people? What kind of logic is he using?
Just like with Jean-Pierre’s comments, Schumer seems to be claiming that it was better for the Democratic Party to act as gatekeepers of the footage and release evidence in small segments, in order to make sure that the American people were convinced that the events constituted an insurrection. So, the Democrats and CNN and MSNBC can lie and manipulate evidence and withhold whatever they want to push a specific narrative, but Fox News is not allowed to do so. It is considered cherry picking when Tucker Carlson releases segments of video evidence that contradict the insurrection narrative, but when Democrats do the same type of thing, we call it an independent and objective investigation.
Imagine being so arrogant that you actually believe that withholding evidence of an incident and telling a network not to publish an important story are in the best interests of the people. Is censoring information not what tyrants do? Do totalitarian regimes not manipulate or withhold evidence to make their narratives seem accurate? While pretending to care about transparency, the truth, and democracy, Schumer spoke out for the interests of the corrupt establishment in Washington and advocated for autocracy over democracy. The world has gone mad, and hypocrisy is now explained away with little questioning by the public.
The cognitive dissonance over the new released footage should not come as a surprise to us, being that the insurrection narrative was ingrained into our heads for two years. Being introduced to contradictory evidence on a narrative that one holds dear for a long time can be difficult to cope with, and I understand that people do not want to believe that they have been lied to and manipulated. However, we must embrace the facts and continue to investigate what happened on that day, regardless of where the conclusions lead.
Democrats claim to care about science and facts, but the leadership within their party seem to care little for allowing Americans to see for themselves what transpired. They just want you to be led to the conclusion that it was an insurrection, and no new evidence should be able to sway you in a different direction. Only the Democrats’ interpretation of the facts is true, in their own world, and any ideas and questions that Carlson puts out there are just flat falsehoods. If we did not see this type of mentality cross over into other issues, it would be unbelievable, but Americans are constantly being propagandized into believing what is best for the power of the state and the corrupt politicians in the system.
Many Republicans have also come out against the idea of permitting Americans to see the facts, and the bipartisan effort to condemn Carlson’s reporting is telling of the agendas that are to come. After the 9-11 attacks, there were bipartisan efforts to bomb the Middle East into smithereens, and new surveillance measures, such as the Patriot Act, were implemented. It was, of course, argued that these measures would keep us safe, but as Edward Snowden revealed, this was actually much more sinister and dystopian than what was claimed. Americans were being spied on for their own protection, and a push for a war against domestic terrorism is currently building.
If there were any doubt on whether January 6th was an insurrection, the public would not be willing to invest more in the security, intelligence, and police state entities necessary to wage war against the people. Politicians on both sides of the aisle want nothing more than to increase the size and scope of government, and the FBI and DHS want to secure more funding to stay relevant and push their agendas. Therefore, it is necessary for politicians to persuade Americans that what they saw in the new video footage was not what they were actually seeing, because it is politically beneficial for both parties to persuade the public that January 6th was an insurrection. So, expect to be continually propagandized and gas lit into believing that the video evidence of Jacob Chansley (also known as the QAnon Shaman, or the buffalo-horned guy) being escorted through the halls of the Capitol, for example, was not real.
What evidence did Tucker Carlson reveal about January 6th that got Democrats and Republicans so defensive? Was the over 40,000 hours of video footage cherry picked? Because the corporate media spent much time and effort attempting to convince the public that January 6th was a deadly insurrection, there was little need for Carlson to show this part of the tapes. He did show some parts that were already circulating around prior to the new release, which were the ones showing the violence that was beat into our heads over the last two years, but his primary focus was showing the other side of the story.
Was Carlson cherry picking footage? To some degree, he was, but even if we concede this point, the Democrats spent two years cherry picking footage. They knew that they had evidence showing that the day had elements of peaceful protests or people simply trespassing in the Capitol, and they refused to allow the public to see it. Were they afraid that if we saw the tapes in their entirety, people would not have come to the same conclusions of insurrection? Did the Democratic Party know that the only way to keep its political agenda going was to make sure that the public only saw certain parts of what happened on that day?
It appears that those arguing that Carlson was cherry picking evidence seem perfectly fine with their own version of cherry picking for political reasons. I think we call that hypocrisy. Perhaps if government officials and the corporate media had not been lying about the event for two years, Carlson would not have had to present the other side of the story in the way in which he did. Either way, the fact that the information is out there is a net benefit to the people.
Originally, the corporate media reported that Brian Sicknick had died from being hit over the head with a fire extinguisher, but after the autopsy revealed that the officer actually died from a stroke a day later, The New York Times and others had to retract their version of the story. It was later disclosed that his cause of death was “natural” and was not sustained while in the line of duty, but yet, as Carlson reported, the Left, without permission from the slain, used this story to cause the pro-Trump officer to become a martyr for its cause. We knew all of this for some time now, but what Carlson’s new revelations did was show irrefutable proof that Sicknick was alive and well after he had been reportedly killed. This means that the Left was lying about the account, and the corporate media was pushing a disinformation campaign to make it look like his death was because of the events on January 6th (again, evidence was withheld). Yet, Carlson is the one who is being branded as a liar.
After Jacob Chansley had claimed that he was waved by police to come in the Capitol and walk around, a federal judge called him a liar. About two months ago, I wrote how even from the footage that Democrats allowed the public to see, it appeared that he had gotten in the building pretty easily. Yet, the new evidence that Carlson released seems to show that he was, indeed, led throughout the building by Capitol police, and at one point, nine officers stood idly by without attempting to restrain him. While in the building, the police officers opened doors for Chansley along the way, and they even allowed him to pray on the Senate floor. Either the officers were not doing their job properly, or they did not view what Chansley was doing as a crime that warranted four years in prison.
Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger tried to cover up the actions of the day by saying that his officers were using “de-escalation tactics to try to talk rioters into getting each other to leave the building.” However, from my experience in military law enforcement, that is not how you do law enforcement. You do not lead the protesters through an important asset to the national security of the United States and allow them to walk around unhindered, regardless of how outnumbered you are (why were they so outnumbered, if they knew that there would be angry protesters near the grounds that day?). The Capitol Police are not bureaucrats and psychologists. They are taught to defend the building and others with their lives. In my view, the officers had orders from up high to allow the protesters to walk around the building for some time. Otherwise, they would have feared facing jail time for not attempting to stop the crowd.
At times, the police allowed the protesters into the building, but before and after this period, there was police brutality and excessive force. It is almost like the whole event was scripted and allowed to play out in a way that was politically advantageous toward a certain narrative, and the protesters who entered the building were likely the victims of government entrapment.
As I mentioned previously, Ray Epps had had his FBI-wanted status removed not long before the actions on January 6th, and he had been seen encouraging the protesters to storm the Capitol. Now, we know that despite Epps having claimed that he never entered the Capitol, he did brag to his nephew that he had “orchestrated” the trespassing event. He also lied under oath by saying that the text to his nephew was sent after he was back at his hotel, but new time stamps reveal that he had actually remained on the Capitol grounds, likely persuading the crowd to enter the building. Why was he not arrested? Was Epps an FBI informant meant to entrap protesters (listen to what FBI Director Chris Wray said about FBI “confidential human sources” on that day)? If Epps were working for the FBI, he would be treated exactly how he is currently being treated: not being investigated for wrongdoing and being protected by the Democratic Party. Are Democrats attempting to use federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies as their own secret police to target political dissidents (like in the case of the Michigan governor kidnapping “plot”)?
Not all of the video footage has been released yet, and Kevin McCarthy has suggested that the remainder will be leaked over the course of time, thus helping us understand what really transpired on that day. Was January 6th a bloody insurrection, as has been the mainstream view for two years, or was it a largely non-violent protest, as Tucker Carlson has portrayed it (playing on the corporate media’s “mostly peaceful” narrative of the BLM protests, which featured buildings being set on fire). When Republicans and Democrats are parroting the same narrative, you can be sure that there is an agenda involved, so it appears that Carlson’s reporting is likely closer to the truth.
There was some violence on that day, which was acknowledged, and those who wrestled with police officers or broke windows should be charged accordingly. However, those simply trespassing in the Capitol were not engaging in violent behavior, and they should be released from prison. They were exercising the right to protest and make government officials fear the people (as is the proper arrangement in a free society). In our watered-down political culture, we no longer cherish the true principles of our founding fathers and the struggle against tyranny; and Thomas Jefferson would have seen the events of January 6th as child’s play, since he once opined, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
Furthermore, if you are interested in reading the first two parts of my new January 6th series, please see the below:
Part 1 - The Second Anniversary of January 6th: Will We Ever Know the Full Truth of the Federal Government’s Involvement?
Part 2 - Militarization on January 6th: An Account of Police Brutality and Excessive Force
Thanks for reading Craig’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.