Speaking publicly for the first time since his seismic firing by Fox News, Tucker Carlson indicated in a Wednesday night video release that he was indeed dismissed for presenting on "the undeniably big topics, the ones that will define our future," which — through corporate collusion with both political parties and their donors — "are not permitted in the American media."

When such important debates are presented, as on "war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, [and] natural resources," these "people in charge" become "hysterical and aggressive," abandoning persuasion and "resorting to force," said Carlson, who hosted the highest-rated cable news show in history.

In recent years, Carlson appears to have gained insight about how to identify the fundamental priorities of the establishment. In his March 14 broadcast, he said if the left "become completely hysterical when confronted with any facts that deviate from their lies," media figures can know they have breached the owners' permissible parameters of debate and should adjust accordingly, or else.

As a guest on Glenn Beck’s March 8 podcast, Carlson said, “We talk about a lot of different topics on the show and some of them I think are really important and interesting, and they get no response and nobody cares.”

He then went on to explain that if, for example, he proposed invading Belgium and putting their population “in camps … nobody would say a word.” But “if you say a word about Syria, holy smokes, they come to your house! I don’t know why Syria is so essential to the system but Belgium, a NATO ally in the middle of Europe, isn’t.”

What is clear is one can “know their priorities by their reaction,” he said.

Of course, facilitating an American-led regime change on Syria has been a priority of the Israel Lobby with the neoconservatives for many years as a means of serving the regional interests of Israel.

Yet the question remains, what caused such a swift and aggressive reaction precipitating Carlson’s sudden firing, which seemed unanticipated by either the highly popular host or a management that appeared unprepared to adequately fill his time slot?

First, having previously worked in corporate media for 15 years, independent news analyst Kim Iversen confirmed during her Tuesday show that regardless of a host’s popularity or ratings, if he or she “deviates too far from the message the bosses want heard, they [simply] get canned.”