How Tucker Is Proving The Jan 6th Committee Are Lying. This Should Be Automatic Arrests of Them for Treason, as They Lied Under Oath and Recorded It!
🚔 Crime & Democrats 💸
Tucker on an exclusive with Glenn Beck today, someone posted on Truth, off GWP. This should clearly give the US Marshals the ability to automatically arrest the Jan 6th committee, charge them with Treason, and free all the Jan 6th prisoners! Tucker details to Glenn how his they learned how and what they lied about on Jan. 6th. And theses idiots lied and recorded the lie under oath, never erasing or deleting what they watched! Why?! Because they never thought they’d get caught.
Note: Tucker and ALL media presenters of that nature are primarily ACTORS. That's what they do. Take Tucker saying he was shocked with a few grains of salt. It's TV, its presentation, and 51% performance art.
IMO.
instead of attempting to dissect where Tucker is coming from based on what he is saying, instead, try looking at the net effect of what he is saying, and whether it aids the Cabal, the Deep State, and their agenda, or whether it hurts it, and is to our advantage.
FWIW, I think its treacherous territory logically to start to interpret people's thinking processes and internal positions based on your own thinking processes and internal positions. Human beings are subjective creatures.
So, we should take things at face value and never try to understand the inconsicities and hypocrisy? I should have accepted what he said two years ago and never questioned Joe's legitimacy? Are you telling me I should be a better sheep? Seriously?
Tucker has always been like Hannity providing enough truth to drip feed people but not going all the way into a topic because he is an actor like the others.
I think with the J6 tapes he has crossed a threshold so he probably has flipped at this point IMO.
We all know that his ties to Hunter Biden and his wishy washy stance regarding election fraud doesn't put him in a positive light IMO.
One of the real temptations in the Great Awakening process is to reject old icons and idols, but then simply establish new 'sanctified' ones, and replace one object of projection with another.
I don't really know much about Carlson, as I never paid much attention to him. I wasn't aware that he actually denied the election steal or came out as saying Sleepy Joe won legitimately.
What I AM interested in is the role he is currently playing and the impact of his current reportings. I'm not so interested in evaluating the person as I am in evaluating and understanding the impact.
The need to evaluate personalities seems to me to be tied to the impulse towards (or a reaction against) idolization of figures.
None of the people on the stage are infallible or perfect. if we assign idol status, (This can be done consciously or unconsciously), we end up in a situation where "Oh, I trust this person so I can just believe what they say" or "I distrust this person, so I cannot believe what they say", when any and all actors in the information and narrative war are liable to put out both truth and false things at any time. IMO.
So, focus on the information being shared, look to its net effect. It's almost impossible to know directly whether someone like Carlson, for example, has been a long-term plant, being controlled opposition and playing a role UNTIL the right time, to begin spilling the beans, etc. or whether he has been 'flipped' aka was somehow a DS asset, or whether he's been 'persuaded' to start focusing on truth, etc. IMO.
So, any thinking about this aspect of things, unless tied to examination of the overall impact of the role the person is playing on the greater narrative and information war (aka the war for the minds and hearts of the people), is likely to slide down into establishing either idols or devils in one's own mind, and then settling on one's own thinking with a prejudice.
If you know what I mean.... (erg) /s
Gee, don't you think that your reactive response here is a bit polarized and over-the-top?
Are there only two options? That one must take the view that Tucker Carlson's current direction stinks to high heaven or otherwise, just be asleep, not question, always takes things at their face value and not try to understand things?
Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question.
I think the nature of your response is really interesting, potentially, for you, if you care to examine it.
But like DJT had to finally do when idiot media kept pestering him and demanding that he 'denounce white supremacy', I'll respond:
Resist taking things at face value, make plenty of effort to reflect on all the information and apply logical thinking. Question what people are doing, on both sides of the war, but also pay attention to your own emotional reactions. Beware of your own biases and blind spots, recognize that you inherently have blind spots and develop the ability to entertain a variety of potential explanations for surface activity and behaviors by actors around you.
Have a nice day!
Don't answer, it's rhetorical? Well, your rhetoric is both officious and insulting. And since you were so condescending to offer a stranger personal advice, may I return the favor? Obvious efforts to be pedantic generally end up being gobbledygook.
Hey, thanks for the favor.
Note: occasionally, I come across someone who finds my particular style to be... well, as you say, 'officious'. It's certainly true that I can be pedantic sometimes. My writing style, not to mention thinking style, occasionally rubs some people the wrong way. Some people experience it as condescending, but I don't have a problem with that. There are enough people who find my particular writing style eloquent, insightful, helpful, articulate, inspirational even. They are the people I write for. Not everyone needs to like it.
I'm not sure why, but it seems like me challenging your particular argument and way of thinking (as expressed in your comment) triggered a pretty strong reaction. I wouldn't sweat it. We don't need to agree on everything. What's really important is that we agree, by and large, on why we are here.
If my comment didn't help you or benefit you, well, I'm sad. But maybe it contributed to others who read it.
Either way, have a good day.
Edit: PS. What I wrote as "Resist taking things at face value..... by actors around you", well, that certainly applies to me as well. To any and all anons, I think. But I only really offered it because you seemed to be asking (or even suggesting) that I was telling you what to do, as in be a sleepy sheep, or whatevs. I RESPONDED to you. Maybe you should look at what YOU wrote as a starting point for looking at what I wrote in response.
But either way, either way, thanks for the favor and the advice!
PPS. If you wish to discuss further, I'm open to that. Btw, "don't answer" wasn't meant to shut you down. But I do think you're overreacting to what are essentially text messages over the net. Text is really very poor at communicating a LOT of things that are very important to real human communication. As such, it's also often liable to misinterpretation. But both you and I know that, right?
I think I'd better cease and desist here....