War of the Worlds: The New Class

Pam Ho
21 min readMay 5, 2019


Stewie Griffin is based on Niles Crane’s parody of the Eastern Establishment

The American Liberal Establishment, or what used to be called “The Eastern Establishment,” is an aristocratic class that developed in 18th century America and has grown larger and more powerful ever since. Often referred to as “old money.” Celebrities are often given entrance into that social class because of their celebrity, i.e., they become personal friends with those elite old money families that dominate America because people from those families want to be friends with celebrities. Celebrities used to be shunned in upper-class high society, but times have changed. That is why we often see celebrities support mainstream political views. In truth those views originated behind the scenes from the establishment class who have befriended them. In that way the elite worldview trickles down to political and media celebrities — who are often also part of old money families. Those politicians and media celebrities then become spokespersons for the elite class which they have entered or were born into.

There are other powerful influences in America. The biggest being that which Trump is aligned with in the GOP supported by the masses of what Carroll Quigley referred to in Tragedy and Hope, and Christopher Lasch as the American petite bourgeoisie — defined as owners of small business, artisans, tradesmen, farmers, office workers, police and fire fighters, local bureaucrats and small landowners. They tend to be preoccupied with social and economic advancement. They have a cognate in the Democratic Party although a dividing line of religion is usually what divides them. The GOP lured southern Christians to switch from their support of the Democratic party since the Civil War by promoting themselves as the anti-abortion and pro-religion party in the 1970s-1980s, i.e. that is when they created “The Religious Right.” Previously the GOP was mostly known as the pro-business party of the rich. They famously mostly opposed the New Deal of FDR and the Democrats (not all though, Rockefeller and his network were behind the creation of Social Security because they wanted to keep the working class pacified) because it greatly increased taxes on the wealthy—a 94% tax rate for people making $200,000 a year by 1944. That led the rich to mostly support the GOP until the take-over of the Democratic party by The New Democrats who oversaw a reversal of Democratic party economic priorities starting in the 1990s, i.e., they abandoned their traditional appeal to “people in need” for the rich, see 1. NAFTA, and 2. The United States–China Relations Act of 2000 — both of which led to the massive increase of American industry moving to lower wage nations.

Even so, the typical Republican voter is more well off than the typical Democrat voter. Even though the New Democrats very openly sold-out the working class they at least rhetorically pander to the poor by advertising themselves as more willing to give “benefits” to people in need. Therefore the poor support Democrats even though they rarely do anything for them, e.g., the disabled and elderly poor.

Carl Oglesby in his seminal “Yankee and Cowboy War” calls the “conservatives” leadership class “upstart new money cowboys” because they mostly made fortunes in domestic oil and gas, aerospace, agribusiness, real estate, and the military industrial complex from states mostly in the southwest and west. They are mostly conservatives and libertarians in political opposition to the “old money” eastern establishment class which has been around and growing in wealth and scale for hundreds of years, supporting both the Democrats and until recently the GOP a.k.a Rockefeller Republicans.

The cowboys in his thesis which was following Carroll Quigley’s thesis in Tragedy and Hope.pdf and also The Power Elite by C.Wright Mills, have been trying to take power away from the older establishment for control of government to promote their own agendas since the 1950s — with some success since taking out JFK. According to Oglesby the cowboy (mostly newer wealth from the west) faction of elites were behind the murder of the Kennedy brothers, and the yankee faction (eastern establishment mostly from NYC) took revenge by taking Nixon down and getting their guy Jimmy Carter in office. Quigley identified the cowboy base of support as Barry Goldwater supporters in the ’60s with the creation of the “conservative movement.” After the gradual demise in power of the eastern establishment’s influence in Republican politics (a.k.a. Rockefeller Republicans) the cowboy faction has taken it over completely via the Tea Party and then Trump.

The “Eastern Establishment” came into great wealth and international prominence in the late 1700s with The Old China Trade and the early 1800s with the founding of the banking industry and rise of big business during the industrial revolution. The great wealth of the southern states from the planter class was mostly lost due to the Civil War and its aftermath during the Reconstruction era. The Eastern or now called Liberal Establishment is made up of at its core (older money) like what we see with the European aristocracy — they are mostly related to each other due to alliance based marriages for hundreds of years. A princess in Bulgaria or a duke in Spain is related to most of the European aristocracy — in the same way the old money families of the “Eastern Establishment” are mostly related to each other and function as a hidden American aristocracy whose true influence is mostly known only to members of their class.

They have dominated the government through their long time dominance of banking and industry — which is due to their families being part of the creation of those industries. Back in the 1700s and 1800s the wealthier people bought up land in vast tracts on the cheap in all major cities and their descendants enjoy vast wealth and power because of that. Their wealth was invested in the early stages of most of the major industries, corporations and banks.

Some people think Jewish influence is the main power in America. But the reality is that Jewish influence and power comes from their joining already structured establishment classes. Just like the Mafia from the 1930s till now are in the public’s imagination entirely Italian or Sicilian — when the reality is different. There was a merger of different ethnic based criminal groups based on cooperation for enhanced protection and profit. The stronger crime groups led the way in the creation of what was called The Syndicate whose influence is far beyond what you see on TV or movies. That false portrayal is on purpose because Syndicate power is intertwined with Hollywood. The Syndicate was made of many ethnic groups but was originally dominated by Italians and Jews who worked together to take over the state of Nevada with the aid of Mormon bankers to create Las Vegas as we know it. The financial benefit for them was enabled by partnerships with people in political power in California, Chicago, New York and Washington D.C.

The “Eastern Establishment” or The Liberal Establishment as it is now called has incorporated many people into its power structure because of shared values and purposes. Jews, Arabs, people from all ethnic origins have a lot of influence in the “Liberal Establishment” in America because they were accepted into an aristocratic establishment superstructure due to shared values. Here is an example of an aristocratic family from the “Eastern Establishment” that started hundreds of years ago and is still relevant today:

JP Morgan Chase is the largest American bank but in reality they are JP Morgan in name only. JP Morgan was bought by Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan in the year 2000 but decided to use the name JP Morgan for marketing purposes. But Chase Manhattan itself was also a fake name. They had been bought a few years before that in 1996 by Chemical Bank who decided to use the Chase name for marketing purposes. So today JP Morgan Chase is in reality that same Chemical Bank who changed their name to Chase Manhattan and then to JP Morgan Chase — their management is the same as it was before they first bought Chase Manhattan and then JP Morgan. Who owns Chemical Bank a.k.a. JP Morgan Chase, the largest American bank?

Chemical Bank began in the early 1800s and was dominated by someone officially outside the firm but who in reality was one of the largest stockholders (10%) and a daily director, Joseph Sampson. He was also the largest stockholder and or director of what was to be renamed Con Edison; New York Life Insurance and Trust Company (now BNY Mellon); National Bank of Commerce in New York (now JPMorgan Chase) and others. He and his wife’s family were considered elite old money families who were among the wealthiest of the wealthy at that time in 19th century New York City. His descendants have been part of “high society” till this day. Although many people say that high society has given way to celebrityhood and pure wealth in upper-class circles, that is true only to a certain extent. The old money relationships between the so-called “cousins” (due to so much inter-marriage) that made up the Social Register 100 years ago still exists. The extended family descendants from Joseph Sampson and his wife’s family have had influential positions at many banks and corporations since their founding, and also influential positions in the governments of America and Europe. They are related to hundreds of other similar old money families at leading positions in major corporations, banks, investment funds, law firms, universities, NGOs, media, and government, whom together form an aristocracy of old money in America. Their agenda is publicized in mainstream media and pushed by politicians and celebrities. They created and believe in the current neoliberal world order a.k.a. the Liberal International Order, which was created after WWII for the express purpose of consolidating their rule over the world.

While the Rockefeller or Rothschild families are seen as dominant in banking in America and Europe from a long time ago by so many, there are other large extended aristocratic American interconnected dynastic families who have had leading roles in the American establishment for a long time before Rockefeller, Morgan or the Rothchilds came on the scene in America. They were very successful, but “The Establishment” was never controlled by Rockefellers, Morgans or Rothschilds as some conspiracy theories claim. They are an interconnected elite class which is not controlled by any single family with roots going back centuries in American power. With vast land holdings and early control of major banks and corporations, with family in leading political and media positions, they have dominated business, media and government in America for hundreds of years. They sought to take over the world after WWII. They still seek that goal. See this interview with economist Michael Hudson author of Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire, for the rundown; and this essay by Sam Williams.

Much of the European leadership and their aristocracy are personal friends with the American establishment — and often also related. In the 1800s there began an ongoing occurrence of inter-marriage between American “high society” with European financial and corporate elites, and also with their nobility and aristocracy — leading to many American families gaining noble titles. Most famously the King of England renounced the throne to marry into an old money elite banking and railroad family from Baltimore. The Sampson family mentioned earlier also intermarried with various wealthy European families, e.g., with the Greek aristocratic Vagliano (Vallianos) shipping family, also the French corporate elite, and also with various old families from the European nobility and banking elite, and also with the American aristocracy including various well-known banking and oil based families and many more.

Trump was not part of that high society world of American and European aristocracy and nobility. His leadership of America was embarrassing to the aristocratic elites who see America as their own. He is seen as bad for business and harming the world order they built up since the end of WWII by being allied with wealthy people who have different goals and values then the traditional old money bank based American aristocracy.

And like we see with Trump and Russia sanctions — the aristocracy can also get congress to pass veto-proof laws which force a president to acquiesce to their foreign policy agenda, which is the very dangerous goal of forcing all nations into submission. Look what has happened to American relations with the EU. The leading EU states are not happy with the American attitudes towards Russia, China, Iran, etc. To say the least. That alliance is crumbling before our eyes because EU business concerns are outweighing the geopolitical goals of the LIO (Liberal international order) when it comes to business and competitors to the LIO — like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Under Obama US foreign policy was following in the mold laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997). There he lays out a plan for US global leadership being necessary to make sure the world is safe for global capitalism. One thing he writes about is the importance of Central Asia for American hegemony, to make sure China or Russia do not gain a dominant hand in those economically important countries. Due to their vast wealth in natural resources and also their geopolitical pivotal locations, he said that it would be necessary to use the unipolar hegemonic power of America to shape that area of the world until it was made safe for the global capitalist system. Then America would relinquish its unipolar hegemonic position and be one among many nations enjoying the rewards of a stable global capltalist world order (LIO). But first — future Russian and Chinese expansionary plans needed to be tamed, they needed to have their possible nationalist agendas of dominating central Asia, or the Middle East, and anywhere else, thwarted by American political ingenuity, i.e., getting Russia and China onboard with the agenda, bringing them onboard the magic capitalist bus (LIO).

His ideas in 1997 were based on the political reality of that time, he hoped for Russia to become politically and economically integrated into the American led LIO rather than going the direction of the Soviets as a rival power center. A Russian nationalist agenda was seen as possible in the future after the break up of the USSR but he hoped that Russia would become more like Japan and Germany after WWII and join the “club of nations.” He hoped that Russia and China would be helped into the American led world order by helpful American leadership — rather than move into the direction they have gone — which is messing up the planned consolidation of the economic and political world order under the domination of capitalist elites. His idea was that nation states would be less and less of an intrusive power over the world after a unified global economic order took shape, i.e., a world order shaped and ultimately run by cooperation based on mutually advantageous capitalism without individual nationalist agendas. He saw Islamism as more of a future problem than Russia or China whom he believed could be easily brought into the American led world order (aka LIO, aka Rules Based Order).

The elites he represented wanted to use American power to bring all nations as close as possible into America‘s sphere of influence. The goal was to open up and keep countries open for integration into the global capitalist system so global business was not hindered by nationalist or foreign dominance of those nations. China and Russia were especially seen as possible threats to a unified global order who needed to be contained and led into a “new world order.” He saw them as possibly becoming more nationalistic as time went on and thereby seek to expand their influence at the expense of the globalist community. Which is what happened.

Why that happened, in simple terms, is that Russian leadership believed Russia was being taken advantage of and destined to lose control to LIO oligarchs. While Chinese leadership changed direction from turning more capitalist and open — to more nationalistic and more closed off to LIO integration. Their newer leadership has ideological differences with the LIO system (Authoritarian Socialism vs Oligarchic Capitalism). They also saw much of the world under LIO control end up in poverty and surrounded by rampant crime (Africa, Latin America, etc.) The liberal culture of decadence and hedonism being promoted as “good and wholesome” where anyone who disagrees is literally demonized, is disliked by current Chinese leadership who have affinity towards culturally conservative traditional views. They view modern liberal culture very unfavorably. They also believe that poor economic leadership based on greed and exploitation has led to an economic order where the rich thrive at the expense of everyone else. They believe that the promise of Democracy and “freedom” is a sham because in actuality an unaccountable and exploitative authoritarian elite class co-opts government to force everyone to do their bidding. They believe false piety is used to demonize anyone who objects to the LIO worldview and total domination.

Brzezinski was a leading voice for the American Establishment on foreign policy ever since the early 1960s as an adviser to JFK. Later he served as Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser. He famously co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller and led the organization as its first director from 1973 to 1976. At the time the Rockefeller conglomerates had surpassed the Morgan conglomerates as the most influential corporate financial group of the American Establishment. The Trilateral Commission was supposedly created as a response to Nixon’s upending of the world economic order with the Nixon Shock, which did away with the world monetary order based on gold and the dollar which had been set up at the Bretton Woods Conference near the end of WWII.

Carl Oglesby in his seminal “Yankee and Cowboy War” claims that Nixon represented the Cowboy faction of elites to some degree, but Nixon supported both sides which is what got him in trouble with the Yankee faction. The Cowboy faction (Movement conservatives) which is recently referred to as The Tea Party or “nationalists,” are in opposition to the “Globalist” Yankee faction. The globalists are primarily concerned with a unified global economic system (Liberal International Economic Order) for the smooth running of global business concerns. They were what George HW Bush was on about when he mentioned a “new world order,” or what David Rockefeller was speaking to when he wrote this in his memoirs:

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.

That is often mistaken to be about a plan for a one world government, which was and is actually seen as a worthwhile goal by many in the elite class to one degree or another, but that was and is also seen as impractical and unlikely to be able to gain support so it’s seen as more of a dream ideal, as a pie in the sky best case scenario which is therefore not taken seriously. What they were actually talking about as imminently achievable was and is a unified global political economic order, where all countries follow the same rules which benefits capitalist priorities over national priorities so that capitalism is not stymied anywhere in the world by various nationalist economic or political agendas and policies. There is a quote attributed to Brzezinski from a State of the World forum in 1995 put on by Gorbachev where the idea of a world government was a popular topic which Brzezinski appears to support in his speech, but in later years he wrote about his doubts and the impracticality and that it could not be achieved — even stating he wasn’t sure it would be good for the world anyways. What he was pushing as a realistic and important goal 10 years later in 2005 was what I just said about a unified global order which needs America to take the lead in shaping.

The free-trade agenda of America under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama were all part of that development of a world order where global capital business concerns are the predominant pretext for states to align their economic and legal laws with each other. That is in contrast to the nationalists (Cowboys) who are more concerned in exploiting America and the world at the expense of the rest of the world. Nixon who was a Cowboy sometimes with close ties to Howard Hughes (cowboy) also had close ties with Rockefeller interests (yankee) with Rockefeller associated people in his administration in foreign policy (Nathaniel Samuels, William Rogers, Henry Kissinger, and Alexander Haig who Nelson Rockefeller was going to finance for a run for the Presidency).

According to Oglesby Nixon’s appointment of Connally to implement nationalist economic policies were a great disturbance to the globalist corporate world and led to his being brought down with Watergate by the Yankee faction with the Rockefellers leading the charge. That view is understandable because of what was written about the origin of The Trilateral Commission in the early ’70s by Rockefeller associated people, who blamed Nixon’s policies in various articles and essays for the need of The Trilateral Commission to fix his mistakes. But that was likely a cover since those policies were not as they claimed and were not damaging to the corporate world.

The Rockefellers likely wanted Nixon out of office for other reasons, probably for not being loyal enough by being of service to the Cowboy clique. After Nixon resigned the new VP slot went to Nelson Rockefeller. Shortly after that Rockefeller protege and Trilateral Commission member Jimmy Carter was installed in the White House and he duly appointed a large number of Trilateral members in major positions of the government.

At the time the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was going through the same kind of political turmoil of the 1960s as the rest of American society with members having major disagreements on the Vietnam war, etc. Some leading members quit and said the CFR was not keeping up with the times, they were stodgy, banal, out of touch, and lacked a creativeness that made them too boring and sober. The CFR then added younger and more diverse members to try to keep up with the spirit of the times after also being disparaged as a strictly elitist organization in the media. Some said The Trilateral Commission was then created because David Rockefeller said he didn’t like the influence of the younger and more left leaning members of the CFR. But according to George S. Franklin, Jr. the reason for the creation of the Trilateral Commission was because David Rockefeller thought the CFR had grown too large. George S. Franklin, Jr. was the Executive Director of the CFR from 1953 to 1971, the first Secretary of The Atlantic Council, and also the “Coordinator” of the Trilateral Commission. And oh yeah, his wife was the niece of Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (David Rockefeller’s mother) and granddaughter of Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich — author of the 1st iteration of the Federal Reserve Act: The Aldrich Plan.

By 2016 Zbigniew Brzezinski had updated his views as laid out in The Grand Chessboard which had been followed by Barack Obama (claimed him as a personal mentor) to one degree or another in his foreign policy. In an article titled Toward a Global Realignment he stated that it was time to end the containment policy towards Russia, China, and Iran. Instead he wanted to integrate American (globalist) foreign policy with those nations, creating a new Trilateral based relationship to share in the burden of governance over the Middle East and Central Asia as he hoped would start to happen back in 1997:

Given all this, a long and painful road toward an initially limited regional accommodation is the only viable option for the United States, Russia, China, and the pertinent Middle Eastern entities. For the United States, that will require patient persistence in forging cooperative relationships with some new partners (particularly Russia and China) as well as joint efforts with more established and historically rooted Muslim states (Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia if it can detach its foreign policy from Wahhabi extremism) in shaping a wider framework of regional stability. Our European allies, previously dominant in the region, can still be helpful in that regard.

He wasn’t alone. Kissinger also believed the same thing more or less. But Trump and the Cowboy nationalist faction of American elites didn’t get the Brzezinski Memo, nor did the Yankee globalist faction. They are dominated by people who corrupt government for their own profit, others among them are more ideologically driven (neocons, religion based, etc.) at the expense of a realist strategic foreign policy for the good of America and the world. Currently both of them are striving for a unipolar world in the face of too much resistance for that goal to be remotely feasible anymore. As Brzezinski lays out in his 2016 article — we need to accept the multipolar reality for our own good by allying with Russia, China, and Iran. That doesn’t mean he is recommending to give in to all their various agendas, but rather to strive to make accommodation with them and work with them instead of against them — which would be in stark contrast to the demonization and new cold war we are currently in with them. We live now in a multipolar world and his vision is that it is not wise to treat those nations as enemies whom we make demands of and sanction if they don’t comply as if they are vassals of an empire.

Contrary to popular theories, Brzezinski did not promote an American empire. He promoted using American power temporarily in order to help create a shared global economic and legal system so the world would be safe for capitalism everywhere and anywhere. He did believe in empire, but he viewed it as shared global concern which could only work in the long term if all nations equally shared in its maintenance. What conspiracy theorists got right was in his promotion, along with the Rockefellers and their globalist Yankee faction — of the creation of a new world order. But it is no longer new since it has been an ongoing concern since the 1970s. And it isn’t about a one world socialist government — they are hardcore capitalists and vehemently oppose socialist policies — which is why they always try to put a stop to Bernie Sanders when he runs for president. Trump and the Cowboy nationalist faction still oppose them and have been a spanner in their works — but at the same time the Yankee Globalist faction is also not following Brzezinski’s 2016 advice to modify their attitudes towards Russia and China by allying with them.

The attempt to isolate the China-Russia-Iran bloc has no way of succeeding and is clearly based on short term profits for the corporations pushing American policy, rather than the health of the economic system as a whole. This is clearly seen in how America is targeting Europe with sanctions over the Nord Stream gas pipeline project from Russia to Germany. If you think this is just about the Trump administration you would be wrong, this has bi-partisan support in America and is clearly being pushed by the big banks and corporations with the politicians in both parties being pushed into doing their bidding. This is a huge mistake and like the economic meltdown of 2008 caused by the short-term profiteering of Wall Street greed, we are seeing a far greater mistake being made by the attempt to enforce submission on so many major economic powers. Their obvious reaction is to isolate themselves from American economic reach which means they WILL join the Russia-China-Iran bloc.

Brzezinski’s 2016 advice to bring Russia-China-Iran in from out of the cold was the smart path to follow. It still is. It is THE ONLY way to save the world economy from splitting more and more in ways that adversely affects America more and more and by extension the rest of the world whose economies are tied to America.

The current leaders of both American establishment cliques need to accept that their strategy is outdated and self-defeating — and dangerous. It threatens the lives of so many on a daily basis around the world, including Americans. The rise of China and Russia has made a unipolar world impossible unless the Chinese all of a sudden decide to submit to the LIO. And that is what the American establishment seems to think they can force on them. They hope to wait out Putin to change Russia when he is gone. While that may be possible, what they hope with China is extremely unlikely. China is aggressively courting other nations for partnerships while America is losing more and more respect among the people and leaders of the world.

That loss of respect cannot be underestimated on its influence over the world’s leadership class. America is now seen as a bully and an imperialistic warmonger the world over. Multipolarity is here to stay unless China magically disappears. The dangers of confronting Iran, Russia, China, and so on are not being taken seriously enough by the Trump administration if their actions plan on following their rhetoric. If backed into a corner an animal will do whatever it takes to live. Does Iran have plans to attack the US mainland if attacked? Do they have people in America ready and waiting? Did they buy nuclear weapons from a stolen ex-Soviet stockpile, or maybe from North Korea or Pakistan? These are serious concerns that do not seem to be taken seriously by the Trump administration. The Obama administration seemed to understand the threat those countries posed to America and sought the diplomatic route, the current administration seems not to unless they are all bluster with no plans on military actions. Isolating Iran and Russia in the hopes of gaining their submission will fail as long as China is there to aid them. Instead of submitting what will happen is the continuation of the creation of a new monetary and military alliance system outside of LIO domination. Realistic selfless leaders are better for everyone over the long term rather than self-serving short-sighted ones, like the ones leading America and the LIO right now.

Tulsi Gabbard is seen by many smart people as the future of American politics because what America and by extension the world needs right now is leadership that everyone can trust. If the world doesn’t trust American leadership then America will be the loser and the world will suffer as American leadership makes the same mistakes over and over in an attempt to enforce compliance to the plans of the short-term thinkers of the American liberal oligarchy and the conservative oligarchy.

Here is a documentary on the American oligarchy. It doesn’t go into all you can about them, but it does really well.