In yesterday's newsletter and associated video I wrote and spoke about Tucker having an "epiphany" while on an obsure podcast.

It fit very well with the overall picture of Carlson having parted ways with Fox, and his closing statement about truth prevailing because it is a law of the universe. That was heartening indeed.

After all, for decades we have been subjected to the prescribed narratives and propaganda of the corporate-owned mainstream media.

Therefore, I have no doubt that the millions who have been Tucker fans are looking forward to what he will do now that he appears to be totally independent - free from the machine known as the mainstream media whose only function seems to be to demonize Trump, protect the Biden crime family, and champion the radicals and the queers of the world while protecting Big Pharma and corrupt politicians.

Admittedly, I am one who looks forward to him playing a significant role in the future.

But that's in the future and remains to be seen.

There are, already, many others who have established channels and followings on the Internet as independent "influencers" as some are known, or as citizen journalists - such as myself (without the huge following:-).

To get to the point though, I received a link to one of those independent individuals - "Amazing Polly" as she's known, and having seen some of her work in the past, I followed through and watched this one in full.

What surprised me was that she used that clip I had used of Tucker having what I called his epiphany on that podcast.

It comes up at around the 26 minute mark - and her observation about Tucker, and the podcast, was certainly an eye-opener.

Now, in case you think it was a negative take, no it wasn't.

But for me it was a bit of a revelation.

She is suggesting that Tucker just might be involved with a group of very rich individuals who have planned for years to incrementally gain control of the alternative media - including channels such as Rumble, Locals, and others.

Is this a bad thing? I asked myself.

Not necessarily, provided their intentions align with the "good" when it comes to being an alternative to the hogwash of the brainwashing legacy (failing) media corporations.

Her overview of interlocking relationships between individuals and the many companies they have established or control is, I think, well worth the time it takes to get that broader picture - the one outside one's narrow focus on current events such as the barrage of opinions and speculations surrounding this issue concerning Carlson and his future.

Really, sometimes I think Twitter would be more aptly referred to as "Chatter Unlimited" or "Gossip Paradise" - even though it certainly does serve a purpose in that it allows us to discuss on a global platform the events of the day, and that's a good thing.

For instance - see the following image.