You Need Not Expose the Truth
What Is Behind the Firing of Tucker Carlson?
Everyone seems to be speculating about why Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News, from the giddy and celebrating crowd on the left side of American politics to the angry and distraught crowd on the right side. In reality, we cannot know for sure what took place in that decision, but we can look at what implications this has on the ideas of truth, transparency, and free speech.
According to the Left, Fox News, and particularly Tucker Carlson, was just a right-wing propagandist outfit. It was not news, it said. Tucker Carlson was a danger to democracy, you know, that commonly parroted line from whenever something disagrees with the progressive worldview (regardless of whether a majority of people agree). Yet, those same people could not see that their favored networks and outfits of MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and others were also part of the same propaganda wing as Fox News.
Thanks for reading Craig’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Some of the top shareholders of Fox Corporation are BlackRock and The Vanguard Group. Do you have any guesses as to who are the top controllers of Comcast Corporation (MSNBC) and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (CNN)? If you argued those same firms that ultimately own Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Disney, ESPN, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin; you would be correct. Yes, BlackRock and Vanguard have a hand in almost every product and service that Americans consume on a daily basis, so with that being said, how can we be sure that the news coming out of any of the mainstream media is objective, free from biases, accurate, or truthful?
When you see all of these corporations in partnerships with the federal government, from BlackRock’s exchange traded funds policies with the Federal Reserve to BlackRock’s and Vanguard’s ability to infiltrate government positions through a revolving door (employees of these companies become officials or bureaucrats in the government, and government officials and bureaucrats move to jobs within their owned companies); you have to wonder what the true motivations are for this. There he goes again with these outrageous conspiracy theories. Who cares if BlackRock and Vanguard have majority shares in all of the major corporations? It is not like money influences what these individual companies do, and even if the primary purpose of corporations is to benefit the shareholders and make profit, who cares? That does not prove some grand conspiracy.
You got me. Money influences absolutely nothing in politics and society. I am just making up some imaginary connection. BlackRock’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score has absolutely no impact on which companies are permitted to get loans and other investment opportunities through compliance with certain agendas (like Anheuser-Busch’s Dylan Mulvaney transgender fiasco, Disney’s pride push, or agendas advocating for lowering citizens’ standard of living to “save” the planet).
While people such as Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar cheer the termination of Tucker Carlson, they cannot see that they are propagandists themselves. They are so blinded by their own biases that they truly believe that Tucker Carlson was objectively evil and a threat to the country. But how exactly was he dangerous? Many would claim that he lied to the American people. After all, Senator Chuck Schumer claimed that after footage of January 6th, 2021, which contradicted his personal viewpoints of that day, was released, there should be no discussion or debate of the newly-revealed evidence (the evidence that the Democratic Party intentionally kept hidden from the American people to begin with). How is challenging the generally-accepted narrative a threat to democracy? Schumer was obviously pushing the idea that truth should be censored, and Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar certainly would prefer to silence their political opponents than try to challenge the merits of what they have to say.
I sometimes listen to progressive podcasters David Pakman, Benjamin Dixon, The Aggressive Progressive (Chris Hahn was Schumer’s aid), and The Young Turks; and the sentiment against Carlson is always the same. He was evil, a white supremacist, an anti-Semite, and a propagandist who was lying to his gullible audience. Yet, none of them cared much for challenging their own biases and questioning whether or not their perspectives on what is happening in the world could be incorrect. They are preaching to their audiences as if what they say is gospel, and their “gullible” audience hangs on their every word, which is no different from what Carlson or other conservative podcasters do. Just because you disagree with what Carlson was saying, it does not make what he says false. Try challenging the substance of his opinion instead of focusing on how much you hate him (just some friendly advice, but I enjoy listening to your left-wing conspiracy theories, wink, wink).
As far as being an anti-Semite and a white supremacist, the burden of proof is on people making those claims. Nowadays, everything is considered racist by the Left. And no, David Pakman and Benjamin Dixon, you are not an anti-Semite because you oppose billionaire George Soros’ funding of leftist projects around the world (such as Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg’s indictment against Donald Trump, Black Lives Matter riots, and color revolutions in Europe; and he has faced backlash in his home country of Hungary, Russia, Poland, Turkey, Pakistan, and the Philippines for the power and influence that he yields) or Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (Schwab has called for a global economic reset and has literally stated that his organization is “penetrating” and influencing governments around the world, from Justin Trudeau to Emmanuel Macron to Joe Biden to Mark Zuckerberg to Anthony Fauci). This is the epitome of stupidity, where we are arguing about whether someone is arbitrarily defined as a racist instead of debating the content of people’s messages and actions. Yet you, Mr. Pakman and Cenk Uygur, argue that progressives are the ones who discuss substantive issues.
Instead of asking for the elimination of dissenting voices, why not try to engage in conversation and understand perspectives other than your own? What ever happened to the free exchange of ideas? When has the Democratic Party become the organization of censorship (get corporations to cancel people who disagree with progressive agendas and have the FBI and DHS eliminate posts on social media)? Carlson represented that independent and free speech voice, but like everything else in this country, the control freak progressives want to strip away things that they do not like (Enjoy smoking a flavored e-cigarette? Too bad. Want to protect yourself with an AR-15? Nope. Ban it. Need a plastic bag or a gas-powered stove, furnace, or car? Forget about it. Prohibitions and taking away choice are our specialties, but we will give you abortion and marijuana and call ourselves “pro-choice”).
Was Tucker Carlson fired for the content of what he was saying? Was it because of his text about how he wanted nothing to do with Donald Trump and the 2020 election-denying narrative, and then he went on air and spouted out some of those very same claims? Was it because of another text that suggested that white men do not beat up black kids? Was it part of a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in the Fox News defamation case? Although we cannot be sure, it does seem like Fox News and (Keith) Rupert Murdoch might want a fresh start without the conspiracy theory angle or the independent journalism that Carlson provided. After all, BlackRock and Vanguard want Fox News to fall in line with the correct narratives.
Carlson exposed that the Democratic Party had been lying about January 6th, that the United States support of Ukraine was not exactly how it is being portrayed, that the Nord Stream pipeline might have been blown up by the Biden administration, that the Covid-19 narrative was false, and many other things. Secretary of Defense Llyod Austin’s Raytheon and former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration Scott Gottlieb’s Pfizer were probably not too happy with Carlson’s reporting, and if you anger the corporate sponsors, you can only last for so long. You cannot have a network advertising their products and then also have a news anchor who is questioning whether one of their products is harmful or part of a partnership with the government and other corporations in an inter-connected web of profit and government control of the population.
Some have suggested that because Rupert Murdoch met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukrainian officials have criticized Carlson’s reporting, he may have been fired to protect the status quo in Ukraine. Rupert Murdoch would not want to be put on Zelensky’s fascistic blacklist, along with Senator Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, and Colonel Douglas MacGregor. Carlson was exposing some of the rot in the military-industrial complex, and we cannot challenge our alliance with or steadfast support for Ukraine. We cannot contest the profits of the defense or public health contractors.
No, siree. The truth must not be exposed. As Jack Teixeira, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea (Bradley) Manning know all too well, if you tell the public what it is not supposed to know, you are an enemy of the state. Tucker Carlson has joined Alex Jones in society’s hall of shame; but he will be back, and perhaps better than ever, as an independent podcaster or alternative media host. Some of us look forward to his triumphant return, not because we agree with everything he says, but because he was not afraid to challenge the status quo and speak freely against many of the evils of the world.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
Thanks for reading Craig’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.