The Tucker Carlson Defenestration

pushed or not?

On the question of whether Tucker Carlson left Fox News or was pushed I tend to side with the Zman who writes that Fox probably saw the writing on the wall as a result of the Dominion lawsuit:

The most likely explanation is that Fox either agreed to clean house as part of the settlement or they got the message being sent by these lawsuits. Fox getting sued over election stuff is ridiculous, but the full might of the regime was brought to bear so that it was clearly impossible for Fox to get a fair trial. The judge ruled against them at every turn, so Fox had no choice but to settle.

Or, as the guy from Da Boss said: “nice little bidniss you got here. Pity if something should happen to it.”

The Zman goes on to say that the regime basically has a policy to “lawfare into bankruptcy any organization that violates the ideology of the regime.”

So can a guy like Tucker Carlson have a show on TV/Internet any more? Or will the regime pursue him into irrelevance?

It all brings up the question of writing under censorship, what Leo Strauss in his Persecution and the Art of Writing called “esoteric” or secret writing, or writing “with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction.” The idea is keeping clear of the regime censors because “nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition” and “protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime.”

I’ve been wondering for the last couple of days whether Francis Fukuyama is doing esoteric writing with his Origins of Political Order and his Political Order and Political Decay. See, officially he regards the modern state society with rule of law, a professional bureaucracy, and “democracy” as a Good Thing. But time after time he is describing how this regime or that regime failed the test. Do you think he might be writing “esoterically” and hinting that, really, every regime fails the test, but we are not allowed to say that?

The point is that, while writers and philosophers may be right to hide their ideas under layers of confusion, someone has to play the role of the Sacrificial Hero, dying on the border between Order and Chaos, as proposed in Jung and Joseph Campbell and Jordan B. Peterson.

So, is Tucker Carlson going to be a Sacrificial Hero? And are his backers ready for that?

Maybe all he has to do is not challenge regime narrative on stealing elections. Or regime narrative on J6 armed insurrections. But maybe it’s now OK to raise the question of Hunter Biden’s laptop and Biden family corruption.

One big issue that I think is coming up is the whole transgender thing. Our liberal friends have stumbled into transgender as the next “helpless victim” narrative where oppressed peoples are being oppressed by white male hetero-oppressors.

But the problem with the trans agenda is that men in the bathroom and men in women’s athletics make women feel unsafe, and “women expect to be protected.” Also, women want their children to be safe.

I wonder about Ron DeSantis going from a tied election in 2018 to a double-digit win in 2022. Could that be the woman vote? See, I think it is easier to see which way men are trending, because they are more up-front about things, publicly arguing about things in the barroom. But women are talking to each other privately, one on one, so when women are changing horses you don’t know until it’s all over.

Meanwhile, the world wonders, how much can our regime friends keep the lid on BadThink?

But it was ever thus. Our good friend Jedgar Hoover was obsessed about “getting” Albert Einstein as a Commie, according to the TV series Genius, including trying to nix a visa in 1932, and bugging him in the 1940s. So nothing changes.

But in the end, the regime changes. Hey Macron, how yer doin’ pal?