Enemy of T̷h̷e̷ Their State

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 goals, share the same social 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 and banking in the later 1970s as a reaction to the success of political activists in the 1960s and early ’70s at getting Congress to create regulations to “protect the public from corporate greed.” The liberal establishment big business empire successfully 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. “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 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 base that illogical view on the idea that they are the true representatives of America. If you disagree with their agenda for America then you are against America, not just against them. We see this all the time from politicians who are beholden to the power elites. If you do not support a war that they support they call you anti-American. If you are against anything they are for, they call you anti-American as if their donor class alone represents America and no one else matters.

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 time of JFK. Their center of power is in the Republican party.

The Republicans used to be the party of the Eastern Establishment who had controlled the funding of both Democrats and Republicans since the 1800s. Starting in the later 1950s the Republicans experienced a political divide between Eastern Establishment elites, who were culturally liberal, against the new “movement” conservatives who supported Barry Goldwater for president. They called themselves “nationalists” who opposed the “internationalists” of the Eastern Establishment members 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 they were a major part of the military industrial complex e.g., Howard Hughes. They were supporters of 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 were eventually able to gain control of the GOP after the Bush family became the last major influence of the Eastern Establishment on the GOP. Since then there are now two distinct political elite 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 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. It has been disputed by a a few later researchers into “elite theory” but they seem to miss the forest for the trees.

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. The data may show the right, the libertarians, and the liberals at the top elite levels do agree with each other on economic exploitation (anti-union), austerity (against increase of benefits for the needy), and war for profit — but they are still opposed to each other in many other ways. The critics of this theory argue that elite support of different political parties or political agendas is based on pragmatism more than 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. See Who rules America? by G. William Domhoff for the best detailed examination of elite control over America.

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 instead took over the GOP. 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 can be nominally 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 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.

The LIO 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 controlling power and principle. Which is why the establishment of most of the world is worried about what is going on in American politics. Why are they so focused on getting rid of Trump at any and all costs? He and his supporters are seen as dangerous to the world order that has been built up because he doesn’t seem to care about their plans, he isn’t part of their social world. Although some of his supporters are influential in the LIO establishment, the LIO still fears Trump is not looking out for their agenda.

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. The reason the media pretends that Tulsi is incomprehensible or nonsensical, a traitor or Russian pawn, is because they want to stop people from listening to her.

Propaganda works on a lot of people precisely because of the formula of repetition, therefore their agenda is to repeat the same few lies and smears about Tulsi over and over. What they don’t understand is what they want to defeat is actually the best thing for them. America is undergoing serious problems in the world community right now. Most leaders around the world have lost a lot of trust in American leadership. And after watching the foolish attempts to impeach Trump 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.

--

--

--

My Other Sites: https://pam-ho-vedanta.medium.com/ ~ https://www.facebook.com/pamhoo ~ https://twitter.com/vrajadev

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

How donors can enable quality journalism

GET TO KNOW THE FACES BEHIND GREAT BIG HISTORIAS

Why “The Great Reset”…Will Fail

Exodus, Earthquakes, Emmys, and Equifax

Introducing Mural

Three starting points to fill the gaps in energy coverage

We are important too

Ms. Write: Women Are the New Stars of Investigative Journalism

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Pam Ho

Pam Ho

My Other Sites: https://pam-ho-vedanta.medium.com/ ~ https://www.facebook.com/pamhoo ~ https://twitter.com/vrajadev

More from Medium

Will the real Russian people please stand up?

Putin’s misinformation campaign to get everyday Russians onboard

Why does David fight with five smooth stones?

Will religious separatists conquer space?

-Thought Reform And Cultural Imperialism