Bribed, Blackmailed and Brainwashed – Part 17

Everyone’s Flawed:  Tucker Carlson Reveals He Too Has A Blind Spot!

By Richard Allen – November 17, 2025

My readers should all know that I love good movies – especially older films that focus on good acting and dialogue – not just special effects! One of my favorite films is a drama set in Sparta, Mississippi in 1967 entitled: “In the Heat of the Night,” starring Sydney Poitier and Rod Steiger. This drama was a timely plot for the turbulent 60’s, with a Black, Forensic Detective from Philadelphia, visiting his mother in rural Mississippi. He is mistakenly picked up as a possible murder suspect, primarily because he was black and not a local resident, sitting outside at a train station. Turns out, the murder victim was a wealthy northern businessman – Phillip Colbert, in Sparta to build a new factory. A factory that would provide jobs to a struggling local economy, which the mayor and town officials were pushing for.  After Poitier’s character, “Detective Virgil Tibbs” is cleared of any wrongdoing, he’s instructed by his Police Chief in Philadelphia to stay in Sparta to help the Police Chief, Bill Gillespie, played by Rod Steiger – and solve the murder.

The movie teaches moral lessons, still being learned in the “post-civil-rights” South. A big part of the movie’s charm is that “never was an stranger couple of men paired together to solve a murder.” One white, one black and both racially conditioned by their upbringing. One from a small rural town in the South, and the other from a big urban center in the North.  And this at a time when Mississippi was still struggling with racial prejudice and division. Equal Rights and Opportunity for All were recent concepts, being developed in northern states. But in the South, Blacks were assumed to be “ignorant, immoral and not to be trusted.” One man, a Police Chief in a backward southern Police Station in the deep South; the other, a black man – who by hard work and intelligence had risen to a position of power as an expert forensic detective – despite his race. The relationship between Chief Gillespie and Detective Tibbs starts off quite rocky, but by the end of the film has developed into a more civil arrangement, almost friendly.

At one point in the movie, Detective Tibbs (Poitier), has had enough of the old Southern racism – especially from the local “fat-cat” millionaire, Eric Endicott, a southern gentleman and powerful citizen – who had a motive to kill Colbert – he didn’t want the factory built in Sparta. So it was easy for Tibbs to focus on Eric Endicott – a genteel old man, steeped in racism and privilege – as his number one suspect. In one scene, Endicott slaps Detective Tibbs for talking back to him, but Tibbs immediately slaps him back. In a heated follow-up afterward with the Chief, Tibbs pleads to be kept on the case so he can bring Endicott down. Detective Tibbs turns to Chief Gillespie, and in an excited tone says:

Detective Tibbs:  “Give me another day, two days. I’m close. I can pull him right off this hill!”

Chief Gillespie: “Man, you’re just like the rest of us, ain’t cha?”

This response from the racist Chief Gillespie is quite revealing. It shows that the movie didn’t seek to virtue signal the typical “woke-anti-racist” drabble we’re constantly forced to hear today. Rather, there was some actual introspection and self-awareness about the principal characters, including Detective Tibbs. Turns out, even though he was himself the victim of racial prejudice, as a fallen human – Tibbs was still tempted to use his authority to get even with whites he didn’t like! He had “pre-judged Eric Endicott!” Who better to be a suspect than an old, entitled, white, racist who had pre-judged all Blacks, regardless of their character? Chief Gillespie, himself in the process of learning his way out of a racist mindset, perceptively realized that even an Erudite, Successful and Well-Dressed black man “had his own blind spot.”  It turned out, Endicott wasn’t guilty of the murder – even if Tibbs didn’t like him or what he stood for. It's this ability to be a crusader against other people’s errors, while being blind to our own that recently put T.V. personality Tucker Carlson in a dilemma. If there ever was a principle allowing “The New World Order” to “Bribe, Blackmail and Brainwash,” it’s the fallen nature of sinful men and women who see the sins of others, but are blind to their own faults.

Tucker Carlson was always a beacon of truthful reporting to those who were dispirited by the constant barrage of misinformation that the “Legacy Media” constantly peddled, especially after the “coronation of Barak Obama.” To say they fawned over Obama would be an understatement. They never vetted him, his credentials, accomplishments (or the lack of) or his seamy associations with groups that hated the United States. The Legacy Media never held him accountable – not once. The Media saw its role as supporting the Globalist-Democrats. And with the departure of Bill O’Reilley at Fox News, Tucker filled a huge void in April 2017.  Tucker’s rise to the national presence was a political earthquake as far as the “mockingbird media” was concerned. Tucker would cover stories truthfully, ask tough questions and give conservative and religious voices a place to be heard. But his firing by Fox six years later in April 2023, was equally momentous. The fact that Fox would fire the host of their most watched news show, kept the story in the consciousness of the public – and confirmed that “The Deep State” was real to the skeptics who mocked it as a conspiracy. There was only one reason: Fox News Corporation, still controlled by the Corporate Legacy Media Complex – could not abide giving Tucker free reign to speak, especially going into the presidential election cycle in 2024!

A year after being fired by Fox, Tucker launched an independent podcast in May 2024, with huge audiences. His popularity was seen as “vindication” against “the Legacy Media” – at least he was vindicated against Fox News’ segment of the Legacy Media.  And for the past year, Tucker has been riding high, scoring interviews with numerous world leaders – including Russia’s Vladimir Putin – and tackling many controversial subjects. Tucker was willing to interview anyone, no matter how controversial. A real reporter, Tucker was all about information and dialogue, not looking to please the Legacy Media, Politicians, or even the management team at Fox News.

But it was clear starting with the failed Epstein revelations earlier this year, that Tucker began traveling down a very difficult road, asking sensitive questions – not just about the “Deep State” but about foreign allies – especially the State of Israel. I wish I could say that Tucker was completely fair in his treatment of all his interviewees, but he made a decision to take a different path, “giving in to his own prejudices and opinions, not always following the facts.” Nowhere is this departure more evident than in the different ways he interviewed Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Radical Podcaster, Nick Fuentes. I should say at the start that it is, and should always be fair game, to ask important questions about motives, money and influence – even concerning allies like the State of Israel. We need to know who has been Bribed, Blackmailed and Brainwashed by “The New World Order.” And my readers should know that I’m not caught up in the Dispensational frenzy regarding God’s supposed desire to set up the Jewish Theocracy, which is totally different from the current State of Israel. That frenzy is all about starting animal sacrifices again – while Jesus reigns on an earthly throne a half mile away. I thought that Tucker’s questions to Ted Cruz were very tough. Tucker actually caught Ted in his own confusion after he misquoted Genesis 12 where God, speaking to Abraham, said:

“I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).

This promise by God was not made to the State of Israel, but to the man Abraham, through whose “seed,” Jesus Christ, all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Galatians 3:16).  Tucker would have accomplished more if he’d questioned Ted in sincerity – because Ted was wrong!  But contrast Tucker’s tough questioning of Ted Cruz with a fairly radical “internet influencer” and podcaster, Nick Fuentes. Nick routinely makes despicable and racist comments, which only serve to demean legitimate questions that should be asked about race and foreign influence. Don’t misunderstand, Tucker didn’t need to be uncivil or rude, but he largely allowed Nick Fuentes to scrub his vile image and appear as a “nice young man who is asking legitimate questions.” Had he gone after Nick with half the adversarial fervor with which he questioned Ted Cruz, Tucker would have made the case that he is “still a legitimate reporter,” unbiased and looking for the facts. But his treating Nick with kid gloves provided Nick’s racism a platform of legitimacy. It shows what happens to the best of us, even if we may partially agree with them, when men become successful!

Israel’s King Solomon warned us: “pride goes before destruction, and a proud spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). We have seen this phenomenon happen to many “conservative crusaders.” They start out championing truths largely ignored, gain notoriety and prestige, then, in order to continue their success, start believing they are invincible. Believing “all of their opinions are right and to be believed,” even if they have little or no proof. This has happened to Podcasters Clayton Morris and Candace Owens, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, Senator Rand Paul and now Tucker Carlson.

So, after watching Tucker’s “puff-interview” with Nick Fuentes, like Chief Gillespie, I’m ready to say to Tucker: “Man, you’re just like the rest of us, ain’t cha?” He had all the fire in his belly he needed to hold Senator Ted Cruz’ feet to the fire because he disagreed with him, but couldn’t come up with one legitimate question to ask Nick Fuentes? Fellow conservative Megyn Kelly personally asked Tucker:

“Yeah. I mean, I personally have watched videos of him (Nick Fuentes) questioning the Holocaust, likening it to baking cookies in the oven. ‘And there’s no way you could have gotten to six million’ seems to be his theory. He seems to think that we’ve way overstated the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. He’s ripped on poor Usha Vance in the most offensive terms. I mean, so what do you say to those people who say, ‘Why didn’t you raise any of that?’” Kelly asked. [https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tucker-carlson-defiantly-shuts-down-223318665.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall]

Tucker has certainly taken a hit over his failed Nick Fuentes interview. But instead of apologizing, he’s doubled down. It would appear that Tucker is so incensed by what he perceives to be the “Israel Lobby” and its influence in America, that he’s lost his ability to be the good journalist that we all trusted him to be. Again, it’s just like Chief Gillespie (Rod Steiger) would have said to Tucker today, “Man, Tucker you’re just like the rest of us, ain’t cha?”

Soli Deo Gloria!