Enemy of T̷h̷e̷ Their State

Pam Ho
16 min readDec 2, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard has become a leading anti-war voice of our times 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?” They want you to see Tulsi as an enemy of the American people. They are inciting hatred of Tulsi as a literal enemy of the state. They want you to hate Tulsi. Why? All she has done is promote principled views and yet the liberal establishment wants you to see her as an enemy of America.

The mainstream media and their enablers in the alt-media more often than not share the same political goals, socially mingle in the same circles, and even share family connections. All the hatred coming from the media can teach us a lot about American society today:

The mainstream media and many in alt-media see principled people as their enemy. They incite hatred of principled people as un-American, traitors, evil. Are you against tyrannical hegemony as the basis for domestic and foreign policy? Are you against the misuse of the law as de facto political policy at home? Then you are seen as their enemy. Ask Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tracey, and especially Tulsi Gabbard how they are treated by the mainstream media and their alt-media enablers for nothing more than asking for principled leadership. They are treated as enemies of the state by a media and political class who claim to be pure promoters of freedom, justice, and the rule of law — while blatantly promoting state/corporate control through censorship, injustice, and lawfare.

Why?

Because the mainstream media and many of their alt-media brethren speak for the Liberal Establishment. Who are they?

They are the big investors and leadership of the corporations who make billions of dollars from war, or from shipping jobs to other countries, or from keeping wages down, or from forcing health care costs higher, or from keeping housing costs high, or from keeping people in debt, or from enlarging the surveillance state, or from overthrowing other governments, or from censoring the Internet, or by keeping you fearful of voicing an opinion different than theirs.

For a long time the elites in America were called The Eastern Establishment. They were a combination of old money families plus those who made fortunes in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. They lived mostly in north east cities like Newport, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, with New York City the center of the Eastern Establishment since their wealth was mostly based on Wall Street banking, investments, and law firms.

After America came out of WWII the elites were now called the Liberal Establishment. They espoused a liberal cultural worldview alongside an oligarchic capitalism (see The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America) which developed into what is more often called Neoliberalism. That was after the start of the deregulation of industry in the 1970s as a reaction to the success of political activists, anti-war protests, consumer activists, and riots in the 1960s and early ’70s. The liberal establishment big business empire fought back after the rallying cry of the Powell Memo:

Used to having broad sway, employers faced a series of surprising defeats in the 1960s and early 1970s.

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.”

Of course big business had already been doing all of those things for a very long time, so I have to assume that what Justice Powell was trying to do was to coalesce support from the younger generation of elites who were not familiar with that history since it was not taught in college. There was a fear among the elites that the 1960s counterculture was having too much influence over their own children. Many children of elite families like the Rockefellers, Fords, Mellons, etc., became supporters of left-wing causes during the ‘60s and ‘70s. The most famous case was Patty Hearst an heir to the Hearst Corporation. After being kidnapped by a radical leftist revolutionary group she converted to their cause and aided them in robbing banks. Also famously a number of offspring from the Rockefeller clan renounced their family oil business and to this day are supporters of the “green” energy movement. Cynical people might say they are trying to capitalize on all forms of energy for profit.

Tulsi Gabbard promotes an anti-war agenda so of course an establishment centered around war profiteering wants you to view her as an enemy of America, as a traitor. The politicians and now most journalists, activists in the NGO sector, and professors base that illogical view on the idea that they are the true representatives of America. If you disagree with them then you are against America, not just against their views. We see this all the time from politicians, journalists, activists, and professors who are beholden to the rich. If you are against anything they are for they call you anti-American, or even against Democracy, because to them only the desires of the rich matter. One of the common ways for them to display their loyalty and sycophancy to the rich is by shameless rhetorical inanity and lying. They publicly embarrass themselves by promoting obvious lies to prove their mettle to the upper class. The more eager and passionate they are to display their lack of self-respect the more they are rewarded. Which is why failing upward is standard among the political courtiers and other lackeys of the upper class.

The agenda of the mainstream media is also to promote the interests of the elite class. That elite class has controlled the levers of power in America for their own benefit for a very long time. Although there is no single unified establishment in America as many people believe, there is a very powerful establishment class which has been growing in size and power since before America came into existence. But they are not the only “establishment.” A newer establishment class has been in opposition to the Liberal Establishment since the creation of the military industrial complex after WWII. Their center of power is in the Republican party.

The Republicans used to be the party of the Eastern Establishment who had controlled the majority of funding of Republicans and to a lesser degree the Democrats since the latter 1800s. The Democrats had historically been funded by big agriculture interests (cotton & tobacco plantations) in the southern states which had been solidly Democrat until the 1960s-80s. 20 years before the Civil War immigrants first from Germany and then later from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and Ireland who were mostly Catholic and Jewish, became a new donor base for the Democrats. Some of those Democrat supporting immigrants went on to become very rich through creating Hollywood movie studios, Department Store chains, law firms, Wall St. banks, brokerage houses, and investment companies. The biggest Wall St. firms though were big Republican supporters but also funded the Democrats to a much lesser degree. For example, JP Morgan funded most political organizations to make them dependent so they could be controlled.

In the 1950s the Republicans experienced a new political divide similar to the old divide in the GOP between the Eastern Establishment vs. retail businessmen associated with the Chamber of Commerce, and vs. the more conservative and or “isolationist” members, which included some from the Eastern Establishment’s most conservative families. The new divide was between the Eastern Establishment vs. the mostly nouveau riche “movement” conservatives who supported Barry Goldwater for president. They called themselves “nationalists” who opposed what they called the “internationalists” of the Eastern Establishment wing of the GOP.

Eisenhower was warning about that conservative movement of the GOP in his famous speech mentioning the danger of the military industrial complex. At the time they held a very anti-communist hawkish view of the world and were a major part of the military industrial complex e.g., Howard Hughes. They were supporters of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his anti-communist agenda, and many were members of The John Birch Society e.g., the chairmen of Raytheon and Koch Industries were founding members. They constantly attacked Eisenhower in the press as a liberal, an internationalist, a One-Worlder, a New Dealer, calling him a “modern Republican” which back then was the same as calling him a RINO. Sen. Joseph McCarthy said Eisenhower was second-in-command to his brother/advisor Milton Eisenhower (president of Penn State and Johns Hopkins). So did the leader of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch, who said his brother Milton was Ike’s superior in the communist party, that they were both part of a conspiracy to create a one world government by the liberal “internationalist” establishment. That worldview got the Birchers kicked out of mainstream Republican forums and was then made well-known around the world by the success of a book by Birch writer Gary Allen called None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Eisenhower referred to those critics, who were supported by many in the Military Industrial Complex, at the end of his speech. He not only feared the MIC would lead America into a disaster by their corporate imperative to take control of the government to shift funds away from everything else to the war industry, but also by their ideological imperative to eliminate communism by “preventative war”:

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment.

This new establishment class was led by people who were usually not part of the old money families of The North East, they often made their fortunes as entrepreneurs in the West and Midwest, 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 generations 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.

Why are so many elites of both parties so determined on getting rid of Trump at any and all costs? Trump is the first president for the “nationalist” conservative establishment. His father supported Barry Goldwater, their political leader for many years. Many believe Nixon was a part of the conservative movement, but he was too independent and often didn’t conform to their ideals. Ronald Reagan also didn’t truly represent the conservative establishment like so many believe, he was supported by big money from both establishment cliques — including mobbed up labor unions and Hollywood’s most powerful company at the time. Many of his policies were in line with the liberal establishment which is shown most clearly in his pick for vice-president George H.W. Bush, whose father was a partner of one of the most connected long time Eastern Establishment banking firms, Brown Brothers Harriman.

That showed that many elites from the conservative side had joined with the more liberal Wall St. elites in the Reagan and Bush administrations. The conservative's Trump is aligned with typically were not happy with the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush era because of those administrations support of what is seen as liberal Wall St. or “globalist” policies, e.g., support of mass immigration, and their foreign policy. The ideology of the John Birch Society was and still is popular in those circles which taught that the Eastern Elites were/are intent on a global economic and political union dominated by Eastern Elite “globalists,” e.g., The WEF and The U.N. are seen as part of the plan for the creation of a one world order whose agendas are controlled by the globalists who are seen as rootless cosmopolitans. They are seen as not really caring about regular people regardless of their stated goals of “saving the world” from climate catastrophe, injustice, etc. They supposedly only care about America insofar as it can be used as a vehicle for their own global class to control the world.

Prof. Quigley was certainly in a position to know from first-hand experience what he was talking about. He was close to the liberal establishment insiders, a friend, a leading academic whose job it was to train future leaders. He taught that there began a real conflict at elite levels in the 1950s-1960s. He didn’t think it would last when he wrote about it in Tragedy and Hope (1966). But he obviously got that wrong since the conservative movement eventually took power by electing Trump. Quigley was given access to the secret archives of The Council on Foreign Relations which he then based two books on. The Anglo-American Establishment.pdf (20Mb) is about the influence of the Round Table groups; and Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time 1966.pdf (36MB). From Tragedy and Hope:

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 have been politically labeled as Nationalists vs. Globalists. The Globalist establishment or Liberal International 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. 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.

The LIO 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 will be attacked as Enemies of The State, or rather “Enemies of Their State.” That is a peculiar characteristic of some 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.

LIO media and many in alt-media push the meme that Tulsi Gabbard is a mysterious and incomprehensible person because of her political positions. In reality they are lying as they often do. She makes no secret of her views. They are the same views as countless other people who want a more peaceful free world. She brings people with different cultural views together to support the common good. That is seen as a threat to the LIO agenda. They are trying to keep everyone too distracted by identity politics to come together to cooperate. Even so, the destiny of our world cannot be stopped regardless of the plans of men.

--

--