Why do you think so many Democrats are trying to get social media networks to be more involved in censoring and controlling what people are saying on their platforms?
Some clearly want to have total control over what people can see or speak. Others are less obviously desirous of gestapo tactics, but they are not thinking through the implications of their desire to see “fake news” eradicated — like AOC for example.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez demanded that Mark Zuckerberg more effectively censor political advertisements because she believes that right-wing ads are promoting lies. She seems to miss the implications of social networks being pushed to take a more active role in censorship due to the implied threats of politicians. What if more right-wing politicians demand the same? What if they gain more and more power in Congress where they can become a real threat to Facebook’s continued existence if Zuckerberg does not kow-tow to their demands to censor left-wing or liberal views? AOC does not seem to understand the precedent she is trying to set in having social networks give in to the demands of transitory government officials using the power of government threats to influence tech companies to censor views critical of political parties or leaders or policies in the name of accuracy or truthfulness.
Tucker Carlson invites progressives on his show to speak on foreign policy or other anti-establishment issues he agrees with. Typically those progressives are not allowed on the other networks unless those shows want to attack them. But the censorious liberals do not care about that. All that matters to them is that Tucker Carlson and Fox News is bad for a number of reasons and therefore should be censored out of existence or at the least boycotted. Never mind that the liberal networks ALL shill for the worst excesses of the neocon and neoliberal oligarchy, as do all mainstream media outlets —yet they are not targeted for censorship and boycotting by the censor groupies. You don’t get denigrated by liberals if you go on media outlets who promote lies over and over for years to con people into supporting wars. Those lies led to death and destruction on a massive scale. If you go on those shows it is perfectly alright for some reason.
For example, every time Tulsi Gabbard is asked on MSNBC, CNN, or some other liberal leaning network show they almost always have a scheme ready to try to make her look bad because they are fronts for liberal oligarchs intent on world hegemony through the use of grotesque violence by the US military on countless hapless peoples around the world. Everyone knows that. But the censorious liberals and left are fine with them because they are what, supportive of identity based social causes as long as that support doesn’t upset the oligarch class? Remember, those same networks have a history of firing anyone who shows any sympathy for a real leftist outlook or anti-war sentiment. If you don’t toe the line by only supporting the political agenda of the owners of mainstream media, then you are treated as an “enemy of the state.” As they do to Tulsi Gabbard.
Ralph Nader, Glenn Greenwald, Bernie Sanders, Michael Tracey, Tulsi Gabbard and many more progressive activists, journalists, and politicians are interviewed on Fox News and invited to speak on Tucker Carlson’s show to have exposure for their ideas on the biggest news media outlet. Why do they go on Fox News? Because if you are critical of the Democratic establishment or their political positions in any way, then their media partners at the liberal networks will not ask you on their shows — unless they want to attack you.
Ever wonder why an outlet like RT has been able to hire so many famous progressive or leftist news people over the years? It’s because they can’t get jobs in mainstream liberal media unless they consent to becoming puppets for their owner’s views. Why is it that the only TV outlets to allow progressives a platform to speak their minds freely are Fox News and RT? Why were popular anchors like Phil Donahue and Ed Schultz fired from MSNBC?
Ed Schultz said he wanted to report on the Bernie Sanders campaign but was angrily told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that “you’re not covering Bernie Sanders”. Schultz said he was fired just over a month after Bernie Sanders began his 2016 campaign because Hillary Clinton was “joined at the hip” with NBC chairman Andrew Lack, and that MSNBC was “in the tank with Hillary Clinton.” The suits at NBC were not going to tolerate anyone but supporters of Hillary. So they fired the only leftist on their network.
How about Phil Donahue? Wasn’t he the big star on MSNBC? He had been a cultural icon in America for years. But he was also a leftist anti-war voice. Phil said: “They were terrified of the antiwar voice.” After they found out how much of a leftist he was, his career was over.
Tulsi Gabbard has become the leading anti-war voice of our generation and yet she is reviled as a literal “enemy of the state” by the mainstream media simply because she has a different view on foreign policy. What does it mean when they accuse her of promoting “Kremlin talking points,” or being a “Russian asset” or a “Russian trojan horse?” It means they want you to see Tulsi as an enemy of the American people. It means they are inciting hatred of Tulsi Gabbard as a literal enemy of the state. They want you to hate Tulsi. Why? All she has done is promote traditional principled leftist views.
And for that she must be stopped. The mainstream media and their enablers in the alt-media more often than not share the same goals, share the same social circles, and even share family connections. All the Tulsi hatred coming from those people in mainstream media and alt-media can teach us a lot about American society today.
This is what that tells us:
The owners of mainstream media and many in alt-media see principled leftists as their enemy. They incite hatred of principled leftists as un-American, traitorous, evil. Are you against violent horrific American hegemony over the Middle East and the misuse of the law to promote political goals? Then you are seen as their enemy. Ask Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tracey, Chris Hedges, and especially Tulsi Gabbard how they are treated by the mainstream media and their alt-media enablers. They are treated as enemies of the state by the very people who claim to adhere to leftist principles.
Because the owners of mainstream media and most of their alt-media brethren speak for the liberal establishment.
Who is the liberal establishment?
They are the bankers and investors in corporations who make billions of dollars from war, or by shipping jobs to other countries, or by keeping wages down, or by forcing health care costs higher, or by keeping housing costs high, or by keeping people in debt, or by enlarging the police state, or by overthrowing other governments, or by censoring the Internet, or by keeping you fearful of voicing an opinion different from theirs.
The liberal establishment is a relatively new phenomenon in American sociological history. For a long time the elites in America were called The Eastern Establishment. They were a combination of “old money” families combined with people who made fortunes in the latter 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. They lived mostly in the North East and mostly in New York City. But they were not limited to those areas. They also lived in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and elsewhere. But New York City was the center of The Eastern Establishment who were more often than not related to each other due to centuries of inter-marriage.
After WWII the elites in America added many more people to their class and were no longer limited to the North East. They would be relabeled The Liberal Establishment. But they were not liberal in the sense of leftist. That liberal worldview developed into what is more often these days called Neo-liberalism after the start of the massive government deregulation of industry and banking in the later 1970s which continued for years to come. That was a reaction to the successes of activists in the 1960s and early ’70s at pushing politicians into passing new regulations to protect the public from corporate greed. The corporate empire successfully fought back after the rallying cry of the infamous Powell Memo:
Used to having broad sway, employers faced a series of surprising defeats in the 1960s and early 1970s. “From 1969 to 1972,” as the political scientist David Vogel summarizes in one of the best books on the political role of business, “virtually the entire American business community experienced a series of political setbacks without parallel in the postwar period.” In particular, Washington undertook a vast expansion of its regulatory power, introducing tough and extensive restrictions and requirements on business in areas from the environment to occupational safety to consumer protection.
In corporate circles, this pronounced and sustained shift was met with disbelief and then alarm. By 1971, future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell felt compelled to assert, in a memo that was to help galvanize business circles, that the “American economic system is under broad attack.” This attack, Powell maintained, required mobilization for political combat: “Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.” Moreover, Powell stressed, the critical ingredient for success would be organization: “Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.”
Tulsi Gabbard promotes a traditional leftist anti-war agenda which is rooted in the anti-war movement and civil-rights era of the 1960s. So of course the establishment wants you to view her as your enemy just like they tried to paint 1960s anti-war protesters as enemies of the state, like what happened at Kent State in 1970. The agenda of the mainstream media is to promote the interests of an elite class who have controlled the levers of power for their own profit and influence for a very long time. Although there is no single unified all-powerful establishment class in America as many people believe, there is indeed a very powerful establishment class which has been growing in size and power since America came into existence. But they are not the only “establishment class.” There is another group or establishment class who have been in opposition to the Liberal Establishment since the time of JFK. Their center of power is in the Republican party, though the GOP wasn’t always under their control.
The Republicans used to be a part of the Eastern Establishment, which was split between Democrats and Republicans. But starting with Sen. Barry Goldwater in the 1950s and 1960s the Republicans experienced a divide between the Eastern Establishment elites who were called Rockefeller Republicans, and the new “conservative movement” led by Barry Goldwater.
They were who Eisenhower was warning against in his famous speech mentioning the danger of the Military Industrial Complex, because at the time they held a very hawkish view of the world. Especially towards what they considered to be the communist threat. They were supporters of Joseph McCarthy and many were members of The John Birch Society, who continued on with the work of McCarthy after his death.
They were eventually able to gain control of the GOP after the gradual defeat of the Rockefeller Republicans, with the Bush family being the last ruling dynasty of the Eastern Establishment’s GOP branch. Since then there are now two distinct very powerful establishments in America. They have been battling it out for control over the government since the time of JFK. Their battle for power is currently epitomized by the battle between Trump and the Liberal Establishment.
This new establishment class was led by people who were not part of the old money families of The North East, usually they made their wealth as entrepreneurs in the Western states, Texas, or Florida. They made fortunes through domestic oil, gas, real estate, aerospace, construction, agribusiness — and with the military industrial complex. This theory was originally taught by Georgetown University Prof. Carroll Quigley, who was mentor to Bill Clinton and an entire generation of foreign service graduates at The School of Foreign Service. His ideas were then expanded upon by Prof. Carl Oglesby who famously led the SDS in its early years as the leader of the anti-war movement in the 1960s. It has been disputed by a number of later researchers into “elite theory” based upon data they collected about the people, businesses, associations, and so on. But they seem to miss the forest for the trees.
While they make important points about the data, they use the data in a way which I think misses the point of what Quigley and Oglesby were trying to make clear. The point wasn’t to show that both of those types of elites were completely separate in every way, or that all of them fit neatly into their model. Rather it was to show that there is a conflict between the elites based on different worldviews often due to their different backgrounds.
The data may show the far right, and the centrists or liberals at the top elite levels do agree with economic exploitation, austerity, and war for profit, but they are still opposed to each other in many other ways. The critics of this theory argue that their support of different political parties or political agendas is based on pragmatism and not on a worldview, e.g., they support in office whomever they believe will help their business. But those critics didn’t take into consideration the revolving door between big business and government, which implies a lot more than simple pragmatism, it implies planning for control over government at the least. Quigley and Oglesby originally made people question many common assumptions about elite theory.
Prof. Quigley was certainly in a position to know from first hand experience what he was talking about. The limitations of the interpretation of data by their critics is that data cannot tell us as much about the thinking of the elites when compared with being their friend — as Prof. Quigley certainly was. He was close to the liberal establishment insiders, a friend of the elites, a leading academic whose job it was to train future leaders all about the world for jobs in the foreign service. He taught that there is a conflict at elite levels, even if the data shows many of the newer elites and the older elites share board seats in various businesses and share membership in various policy groups like the Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, and so on.
From his Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time 1966.pdf (36MB):
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
…As we have said, this Eastern Establishment was really above parties. They had been the dominant element in both parties since 1900 and practiced the political techniques of J.P. Morgan (Morgan invested in all political parties and movements to control them — ed.) They were, as we have said, Anglophile, cosmopolitan, Ivy League, internationalist, astonishingly liberal, patrons of the arts, and relatively humanitarian. All these things made them anathema to the lower-middle-class and petty-bourgeois groups who supplied the votes in Republican electoral victories but found it so difficult to control nominations (especially in presidential elections) because the big money necessary for nominating in a Republican convention was allied to Wall Street and to the Eastern Establishment. The ability of the latter to nominate Eisenhower over Taft in 1952 was a bitter pill to the radical bourgeoisie.
Kennedy was an Establishment figure. His introduction to the Establishment arose from his support in Britain. His acceptance into the English Establishment opened its American branch as well. Another indication of this connection was the large number of Oxford-trained men appointed to office by President Kennedy. In the minds of the ill-informed, the political struggle in the U.S. has always been viewed as a struggle between Republicans and Democrats at the ballot box in November. Wall Street long ago had seen that the real struggle was in the nominating conventions. This realization was forced upon the petty-bourgeois supporters of Republican candidates by their inability to nominate their congressional favorites. Just as they reached this conclusion, the new wealth appeared in the political picture, sharing petty-bourgeois suspicions of the East, big cities, Ivy League universities, foreigners, intellectuals, workers and aristocrats.
By the 1964 election, the major political issue in the country was the financial struggle behind the scenes between the old wealth, civilized and cultured in foundations, and the new wealth, virile and uninformed, arising from the flowing profits of government-dependent corporations in the West and Southwest.
At issue here was the whole future face of America, for the older wealth stood for values and aims close to the Western traditions of diversity, tolerance, human rights and values, freedom, and the rest of it, while the newer wealth stood for the narrow and fear-racked aims of petty-bourgeois insecurity and egocentricity. The nominal issues between them, such as that between internationalism and unilateral isolationism (which its supporters preferred to rename”nationalism”) were less fundamental than they seemed, for the real issue was the control of the Federal government’s tremendous power to influence the future of America by spending of government funds. The petty bourgeois and new wealth groups wanted to continue that spending into the industrial-military complex, such as defence and space, while the older wealth and non-bourgeois groups wanted to direct it toward social diversity and social amelioration for the aged and the young, for education, for social outcasts, and for protecting national resources for future use. The outcome of this struggle, which still goes on, is one in which civilized people can afford to be optimistic. For the newer wealth is unbelievably ignorant and misinformed.
The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms although the process was concealed, as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans. The two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method: we must remain strong, continue to function as a great World power in cooperation with other Powers, avoid high-level war, keep the economy moving, help other countries do the same, provide the basic social necessities for all our citizens, open up opportunities for social shifts for those willing to work to achieve them, and defend the basic Western outlook of diversity, pluralism, cooperation, and the rest of it, as already described.
Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it every four years by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
The capture of the Republican National Party by the extremist elements of the Republican National Party in 1964 and their effort to elect Barry Goldwater with the petty-bourgeois extremists alone, was only a temporary aberration on the American political scene and arose from the fact that President Johnson had pre-empted all the issues so that it was hardly worthwhile for the Republicans to run a real contestant against him. Thus Goldwater was able to take control of the party by default.
The virulence behind the Goldwater campaign, however, had nothing to do with default or lack of intensity. Quite the contrary. His most ardent supporters were of the extremist petty-bourgeois mentality driven to near hysteria by the disintegration of the middle-class and the steady rise to prominence of everything they considered anathema: Catholics, Negroes, immigrants, intellectuals, aristocrats, scientists, and educated men generally, cosmopolitans and internationalists and, above all, liberals who accept diversity as a virtue.
The two battling establishment groupings can be nominally politically labeled as Nationalists vs. Globalists. The Globalist establishment or Liberal International Economic Order is by far much bigger than the Nationalist group since it has been around for centuries and has the support of the elite classes of most of the world, working together in what is sometimes referred to as Pax Americana. In the past few years Steve Bannon has been trying to change that in Europe and around the world by trying to set up a “populist” version of the LIEO. If Nationalist ideologues like Bannon try to create a worldwide network then by definition that makes him a Globalist to some degree or other. Although he would deny that since Globalist principles put the goals of the elite banking and corporate class at the forefront of their agenda, i.e., making the world safe for a unified global economic/political system so that the elite class can control the banking, political, and trading laws of all countries in a unified global economic order. Prof. Carroll Quigley wrote about their goals for the world in his Tragedy and Hope:
In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent and private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montague Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the bank of France, and Hjalmar Schact of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.
- Professor Carroll Quigley, in Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, 1966, p. 324
David Rockefeller wrote in his memoirs about their plans:
Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Whereas someone like Bannon claims he wants to make a united “populist” stand against them, I doubt that is possible even if he is sincere since nationalist groups in Europe tend to be led by people with deep connections to the LIEO through religious-centric groups like Opus Dei and related aristocratic conservative organizations and orders.
Tulsi Gabbard is sometimes mistaken for a nationalist, but that is only because they misunderstand her foreign policy views as isolationist when they are really about principles rather than ideology. The principle of good governance rather than the principle of exploitation by an elite class who have captured the levers of power for their own enrichment. This is the traditional leftist stance. She wants to take back the power and profits for the people but not because of a specific nationalist ideology she believes in like a Steve Bannon or the “conservative movement.”
The LIEO has control over mainstream media and that is why their media promotes the view that anyone who stands in the way of more war and more corporate profits at the expense of the working class, will be attacked as Enemies of The State, or rather “Enemies of Their State.” That is a peculiar characteristic of people born in elite families. The very elite ones tend to see America or England or France or wherever they are from, as their own personal property because of their family having a long history in the creation of or ruling aristocracy of their nation.
In reality, instead of the media claim that Tulsi is incomprehensible because of “some ideology that we can’t figure out,” rather Tulsi simply wants to end the long-standing exploitation of the state for the exclusive personal profit and agendas of the 1%. She really means what she says when she says she “wants to change the government to work for the people” instead of for an elite plutocratic class. Which has been the status quo since the creation of the LIEO after the end of WWII. Although that establishment has gone through many changes since then, it is still under the grip of the same elite class with family roots in the establishment going back centuries. For many of them back to the creation of the major banks and corporations in the early to mid 19th century. And for some going back earlier into the 18th century when the great wealth of many American families were originally generated by the opium trade with China.
But there is a lot of newer wealth and a lot of foreign wealth with a lot of influence over America today as well. The LIEO is not a purely American phenomena. It was set-up after WWII as a vehicle for the elites of the world, and it is still operating in that way, although it was also set-up with America as the ultimate controlling power and principle. Which is why the establishment of most of the world is worried about what is going on in American politics. And also why they are so focused on getting rid of Trump at any and all costs, he and his clique are so focused on short terms profits they are causing serious damage to the LIEO system.
Trump is the 1st president to not be part of the LIEO establishment since its inception, although they have been able to co-opt him in various ways. For instance getting him to push on with the new cold war against his stated desire for good relations with Russia. Many people believe Ronald Reagan was the 1st, in truth Reagan was compromised and worked his entire life with LIEO Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans. Reagan also worked for people with deep connections to the LIEO and their organized crime nexus in the Democratic party and its donors in California, Chicago, Nevada, and Washington DC. After his being injured it is widely accepted that George Bush took over the reigns of power. The Bush family are Rockefeller Republicans, even though Dubya Bush tried to pretend he was with the conservative movement of the Nationalists.
So even though many in the media push the meme that Tulsi Gabbard is a mysterious and incomprehensible person because of her political positions, in reality they are all lying. She makes no secret of her views. They are the same views as countless other leftists, except she is more kind and reasonable to people with opposing views, and because of that she is viewed as a serious threat. The reason the media pretends that Tulsi is incomprehensible is because they want to stop people from listening to her. The idea being:
This person makes no sense. Nothing she says is able to be understood. Therefore it is best to ignore her.
Laughable as that con is, if it is repeated often enough many people will start to believe it. Propaganda works on a lot of people precisely because of the formula of repetition rather than what is being said. This is an established fact which they know, and therefore their agenda is to repeat the same few lies and smears about Tulsi over and over.
What is interesting though is that they really don’t understand that what they want to defeat, is actually the best thing for them. America is undergoing serious problems in the world community right now. A big issue is trust. Most leaders around the world have lost a lot of trust in American leadership. And after watching the foolish attempts in the Mueller investigation and the Ukraine inquiry, both a laughable comedy of errors, what America needs on the world stage right now is someone who inspires confidence and respect; who appears honest, smart, kind, and compassionate.
While Bernie Sanders certainly fits the bill to a great extent, he is of course not someone who is going to inspire a lot of confidence as a long term leader for obvious reasons. I hate to state the obvious about his age and health, but besides that Tulsi is also not kow-towed by the pressure of the media or political establishment into performing tricks to appease whatever current politically-correct establishment view is in vogue like all the rest of the politicians in America. Tulsi Gabbard really is the best choice for America. No one else has the skills, charisma, values, and likability to relegitimize America to the world.