Another Good Carlson Follow On: The Hill

[Benjamin Cole]

Breaking Points on Youtube has pretty good stuff.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[James DiEugenio]

Ben:

Did Tucker Carlson have an impact?

That sure does appear to be the case.

I would have not thought such could happen.

But that seems to have happened.

I love the way they say that Oswald as a CIA asset is the only thing that allows his life to make sense.  From about 9 minutes on the guy sounds like one of us.

BTW, even Caitlyn J commented on it and she is a biggie on the left.

She said that the reason that happened is because the Left would not take hold of the story. When, in fact, they should have by all means.

[James DiEugenio]

Here is Caitlyn's latest:

 

Caitlin Johnstone

 

@caitoz

·

21h

 

You know I'm beginning to suspect the "national security concerns" about releasing all JFK documents are concerns that it would completely invalidate the US government.

[James DiEugenio]

Whew, that is a pretty big statement.

So we now have the left and the right.

As long as Chomsky shuts his big mouth.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Jimmy- Tucker has the most viewed show in that timeslot- 3.4 million viewers- and deep influence within the conservative (and independents as I discovered when my cell phone lit from friends who call themselves independents after my appearance).

Tucker's two episodes were like Nixon going to China. Only he could have done this and only he could have produced impact that we needed. 

We may finally be on the verge of a bipartisan consensus which could not have happened without Tucker- as the aphorism goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Left and right finding common ground especially regarding the National Security State has been brewing for years now. 
My own personal theory is that obviously false conspiracies provide cover for real ones, and therefore their injection into the public debate should be viewed with suspicion. There is a nearly invisible process at work here, one that appears designed to sow confusion and division. 
Ultimately the broader left has adopted a neocon view, anathema to old lefties, who then ironically find themselves in sympathy with some positions articulated by the so-called far right. Strange Days Indeed. But truly there is a lot to be upset about, especially if you are poor, whether you live in a big city or in the boonies. It’s too bad really that the anti-government message they are being inundated with often comes from those that then preach all kinds of nonsense to their unsuspecting and undereducated ears. Tucker Carlson has been up til now a mouthpiece for some of this, but 
i appreciate what he did, and hope like Larry says some bi-partisan consensus is reached as a result of him and others speaking out. 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

Did Tucker Carlson have an impact?

That sure does appear to be the case.

I would have not thought such could happen.

But that seems to have happened.

I love the way they say that Oswald as a CIA asset is the only thing that allows his life to make sense.  From about 9 minutes on the guy sounds like one of us.

BTW, even Caitlyn J commented on it and she is a biggie on the left.

She said that the reason that happened is because the Left would not take hold of the story. When, in fact, they should have by all means.

There are two news shows, The Hill and Breaking Points, that have been doing excellent independent journalism for a couple years, and now have making themselves proud with the JFKA coverage. 

Tucker Carlson, for all of his flaws, has made a big impact. 

I commend you for the tack you have been taking for years: When it comes to the JFKA, check your party credentials at the door. We just want find out what really happened. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Jimmy- Tucker has the most viewed show in that timeslot- 3.4 million viewers- and deep influence within the conservative (and independents as I discovered when my cell phone lit from friends who call themselves independents after my appearance).

Tucker's two episodes were like Nixon going to China. Only he could have done this and only he could have produced impact that we needed. 

We may finally be on the verge of a bipartisan consensus which could not have happened without Tucker- as the aphorism goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" 

 

Well, I would say proceed ahead Larry.  Take them as they come.  Hey 3.4 million is a lot for a cable show.

[James DiEugenio]

Ben,

I even talked to Jerome Corsi.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben,

I even talked to Jerome Corsi.

Good.

As a citizen, I just want to know what happened in the JFKA. No holds barred, no party or ideological credentials needed, let the chips fall where they may. 

If Attila the Hun can help, then let's hold hands with Attila the Hun. 

[Rob Couteau]

Not sure if anyone has posted this previously; if so my apologies. This was just sent to me by a friend who was following Caitlin's twitter posts (I always find her posts to be of interest) from a  few days ago. I post it here in the spirit of inquiry, neither as an endorsement nor as a denial of Caitlin's ideas:

Hard proof could emerge of the CIA directly assassinating JFK and as long as it was only covered by Tucker Carlson it would have zero meaningful impact.

Carlson now plays the role of Alex Jones: make sure he's the only one talking about an inconvenient truth and it makes it look like a right wing crackpot conspiracy theory. Only difference is Carlson has a much larger audience and therefore kills the story much more effectively.

What does it look like when someone criticizes nuclear brinkmanship with Russia, for example, and then starts babbling about woke M&Ms and saying the commies are trying to make your son wear a dress? It makes it all look bogus. And that's exactly what Alex Jones would do too: say real things about how the US is arming terrorists in Syria or whatever and then turn around and start babbling about Hillary Clinton being a reptile and child slave colonies on Mars, making the whole thing look crazy.

I used to think it was great when I'd see Tucker Carlson covering an inconvenient narrative like the chemical weapons false flag in Syria or whatever. I'd say "Ah good, it's getting mainstream coverage!" But over the years I've seen Carlson's "coverage" do far more harm than good.

Now good faith critics of empire get associated with Carlson and his right wing ideology whenever they talk about unauthorized narratives. Even very left wing empire critics like me get called right wing for criticizing US proxy warfare in Ukraine, just because Carlson does.

And this is possible because only the farthest fringes of the left ever talk about unauthorized narratives. No left-leaning media outlets close to the mainstream ever provide meaningful coverage to transgressive stories, so it makes it possible to spin them as right wing issues. So I'm not actually even blaming Carlson for this. Even if there wasn't a mountain of evidence that he's a US intelligence lackey (and there is), it'd still be primarily the fault of the left (and what passes for the "left" in the US) for leaving a right wing pundit to cover this stuff.

And of course it's not like Carlson is only reporting inconvenient facts. He spouts mainstream empire propaganda constantly. He's the single most effective promulgator of anti-China propaganda in the English-speaking world. So he's like a two-way propaganda street: the empire reverse-launders information through Carlson to make good info look dirty, and also he pipes propaganda into the minds of his establishment-wary audience making bad information look good. He may be America's best and most effective propagandist.

I don't claim to know exactly how planned out this all is or who's doing the planning, I only know that that's the effect of what Carlson does. When someone very prominent does something very convenient for the most powerful people in the world, it's probably not an accident.

Caitlin Johnstone

Edited December 23, 2022 by Rob Couteau

[Benjamin Cole]

25 minutes ago, Rob Couteau said:

Not sure if anyone has posted this previously; if so my apologies. This was just sent to me by a friend who was following Caitlin's twitter posts (I always find her posts to be of interest) from a  few days ago. I post it here in the spirit of inquiry, neither as an endoresment nor as a denail of Caitlin's ideas:

Hard proof could emerge of the CIA directly assassinating JFK and as long as it was only covered by Tucker Carlson it would have zero meaningful impact.

Carlson now plays the role of Alex Jones: make sure he's the only one talking about an inconvenient truth and it makes it look like a right wing crackpot conspiracy theory. Only difference is Carlson has a much larger audience and therefore kills the story much more effectively.

What does it look like when someone criticizes nuclear brinkmanship with Russia, for example, and then starts babbling about woke M&Ms and saying the commies are trying to make your son wear a dress? It makes it all look bogus. And that's exactly what Alex Jones would do too: say real things about how the US is arming terrorists in Syria or whatever and then turn around and start babbling about Hillary Clinton being a reptile and child slave colonies on Mars, making the whole thing look crazy.

I used to think it was great when I'd see Tucker Carlson covering an inconvenient narrative like the chemical weapons false flag in Syria or whatever. I'd say "Ah good, it's getting mainstream coverage!" But over the years I've seen Carlson's "coverage" do far more harm than good.

Now good faith critics of empire get associated with Carlson and his right wing ideology whenever they talk about unauthorized narratives. Even very left wing empire critics like me get called right wing for criticizing US proxy warfare in Ukraine, just because Carlson does.

And this is possible because only the farthest fringes of the left ever talk about unauthorized narratives. No left-leaning media outlets close to the mainstream ever provide meaningful coverage to transgressive stories, so it makes it possible to spin them as right wing issues. So I'm not actually even blaming Carlson for this. Even if there wasn't a mountain of evidence that he's a US intelligence lackey (and there is), it'd still be primarily the fault of the left (and what passes for the "left" in the US) for leaving a right wing pundit to cover this stuff.

And of course it's not like Carlson is only reporting inconvenient facts. He spouts mainstream empire propaganda constantly. He's the single most effective promulgator of anti-China propaganda in the English-speaking world. So he's like a two-way propaganda street: the empire reverse-launders information through Carlson to make good info look dirty, and also he pipes propaganda into the minds of his establishment-wary audience making bad information look good. He may be America's best and most effective propagandist.

I don't claim to know exactly how planned out this all is or who's doing the planning, I only know that that's the effect of what Carlson does. When someone very prominent does something very convenient for the most powerful people in the world, it's probably not an accident.

Caitlin Johnstone

Not sure I follow her.

My take is the US globalist establishment has and is doing everything it can to launder the CCP's reputation---including wholehearted suppression of the Wuhan lab leak story. 

No one ever talks about Hong Kong publisher pro-democracy Jimmy Lai, still in prison on bogus charges. 

Disney does heavy business in China, NBC-Universal, BlackRock is heavily invested there. Tesla has a plant, GM does, most of Wall Street and the Silicon are hip-deep in Beijing. The NBA? Apple is over a barrel and splay-legged. 

Of course, the above entities have very large business exposures in China, and must pander to the CCP to protect those investments. They have fiduciary obligations to shareholders and owners that trump any allegiance to a mere nation or principle. 

They are also the financial backbone of the globalist blob that runs Washington. 

I do not watch Tucker Carlson much. If he rants against the CCP and authoritarian communism...that is bad thing? 

When did being against brutal authoritarian communism make someone a mouthpiece? 

Should not the Donks take the lead in this matter? 

 

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

39 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Not sure I follow her.

My take is the US globalist establishment has and is doing everything it can to launder the CCP's reputation---including wholehearted suppression of the Wuhan lab leak story. 

No one ever talks about Hong Kong publisher pro-democracy Jimmy Lai, still in prison on bogus charges. 

Disney does heavy business in China, NBC-Universal, BlackRock is heavily invested there. Tesla has a plant, GM does, most of Wall Street and the Silicon are hip-deep in Beijing. The NBA? Apple is over a barrel and splay-legged. 

Of course, the above entities have very large business exposures in China, and must pander to the CCP to protect those investments. They have fiduciary obligations to shareholders and owners that trump any allegiance to a mere nation or principle. 

They are also the financial backbone of the globalist blob that runs Washington. 

I do not watch Tucker Carlson much. If he rants against the CCP and authoritarian communism...that is bad thing? 

When did being against brutal authoritarian communism make someone a mouthpiece? 

Should not the Donks take the lead in this matter? 

 

 

 

She's a pinko Australian who rose to prominence writing articles in favor of Bernie Sanders 

[James DiEugenio]

How about this one for a quote.

 

Larry just sent it to me.  “By not having released all the Kennedy assassination documents by 2017 as Congress had dictated, the CIA is in violation of the law. It is acting not only as a fourth branch of government, but arguably as the most powerful one.”

[Rob Couteau]

"It is acting not only as a fourth branch of government, but arguably as the most powerful one."

 

That is spot on.