I think it is too easy to dismiss Carlson and others as controlled opposition. In fact, that phrase is theoretical.
It is just as possible that Carlson is waiting for the furor over the movie to settle a bit, and allow him to do his own due diligence before reporting on it... this way he will be the credible validation that many normies still need. If he joins in now, he is just lost in the flood.
Give him some time. I think there are plenty of instances of Carlson coming to the dance late, but he shows up with a fine date and wows the crowd. Let him do his thing.
The controlled opposition often admits things once they realize they can't keep them hidden anymore. If they've been caught hiding things they should have reported, they either downplay the importance of the issue or pretend no one could have known at the time (though millions online might have known for years). They then scramble to re-gain the trust of the audience they betrayed, as they're worthless without a following they can manipulate the next time manipulation is needed.
Is it more likely a powerful network with a globalist agenda would feature and handsomely pay an anchor who opposes their agenda, or one who can gather a patriotic following and lead them off the cliff at key moments, undermining the nationalist agenda?
I think it is too easy to dismiss Carlson and others as controlled opposition. In fact, that phrase is theoretical.
It is just as possible that Carlson is waiting for the furor over the movie to settle a bit, and allow him to do his own due diligence before reporting on it... this way he will be the credible validation that many normies still need. If he joins in now, he is just lost in the flood.
Give him some time. I think there are plenty of instances of Carlson coming to the dance late, but he shows up with a fine date and wows the crowd. Let him do his thing.
The controlled opposition often admits things once they realize they can't keep them hidden anymore. If they've been caught hiding things they should have reported, they either downplay the importance of the issue or pretend no one could have known at the time (though millions online might have known for years). They then scramble to re-gain the trust of the audience they betrayed, as they're worthless without a following they can manipulate the next time manipulation is needed.
Is it more likely a powerful network with a globalist agenda would feature and handsomely pay an anchor who opposes their agenda, or one who can gather a patriotic following and lead them off the cliff at key moments, undermining the nationalist agenda?