Ever since Tulsi Gabbard declared candidacy for president the media has incessantly pushed the meme of Tulsi as a Putin Pawn. Yet when Hillary Clinton did the same thing there was a big backlash. I explain why that happened to Hillary but not to anyone else before her.

::::::::

Neocon-Neoliberal establishment wanted Tulsi out of politics because she is critical of their regime-change doctrine and didn't blindly kowtow to the Democrat party leaders...After Tulsi's visit to see firsthand the truth of the Syrian people, the establishment's professional political propagandists saw a chance to discredit Tulsi whom they now hated for helping the world see the truth of the Syrian war...

Contrary to popular belief the American government doesn't always allow free speech. For example in the past the government has prosecuted people for speech they didn't want the public to be influenced by due to special circumstances, like wartime.But that was in the past and nowadays people associated with government will turn to propaganda in order to punish the speakers they would like to silence. Hillary Clinton recently said that Republicans are working with the Russians "who play a big role" in their election manipulation schemes to lie about Democrat candidates by using "the dark web" to "convince blacks not to vote." She also said they are "grooming" Tulsi who is a "Russian asset" to run as a 3rd party candidate in order to split the vote to help Trump's re-election.

The swift backlash against Hillary must have left her and the Neocon-Neoliberal establishment in the Clinton camp feeling shocked. Many in the media were acting surprised that Hillary would commit political hara-kiri like that, even though they were promoting the same smears right up to that day.

That reaction wasn't what Hillary expected. That wasn't what anyone expected, was it? Wasn't it just a few days earlier when it was perfectly acceptable for media personalities and politicians to try to discredit Tulsi as a "Putin Pawn" or some type of phony progressive? Articles, news segments, talk shows, blogs, vlogs, and everything in-between was piling on Tulsi for being a pawn of Russia, or a phony progressive, or an extremist of one sort or another. That message which was being shouted for months on end off the rooftops all over the Neocon-Neoliberal media landscape and by their aspiring wannabes in alt-media, must have made Hillary feel confident and untouchable if she said the same things about Tulsi. After all, all she did was pile on the ever growing chorus of establishment sycophants in their spreading of propaganda about a collectively disliked political opponent.

What changed to cause such a massive backlash to Hillary saying the same? It was so massive that the very news sources that had been pushing the same propaganda against Tulsi were now going on air and distancing themselves from Hillary! What was going on? What happened?

Ever since 2016 when Tulsi Gabbard criticized the DNC leadership over their handling of the primary debates and stepped down from her position in the DNC leadership to champion Bernie Sanders, the Neocon/Neoliberal establishment which controls the DNC had been looking for ways to discredit her best case scenario they could smear her into being removed from politics altogether. So when Tulsi went to Syria in Jan 2017 to investigate the war and attitudes of the people to American intervention, whom the American media and politicians had assured us were all angry and hateful of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad they saw their chance.

In the video interviews she brought back we saw Syrians from their various religious communities begging America not to support the jihadist terrorist organizations whom the US was supplying with weapons and training to overthrow their secular society and install a theocratic totalitarian caliphate.

The foreign policy establishment under Obama hated that she had shown the world the truth of Syria. America wasn't fighting the bad guy. America was the bad guy. America was helping the Saudis overthrow the secular Syrian government to install Wahhabist religious ideologues so they could prevent Iran from having an ally in such a strategic place in the Middle East. Also taking over their oil and gas fields was another reason which inspired many to come on board the regime chance express in aiding the American and Saudi operation Turkey, France, UK, Germany, and Qatar to name a few. Wikileaks and Edward Snowden had revealed that Saudi princes had been leading the "civil war" with weapons, planning, and fighters from the start, for oil and gas. In 2003 a gas exploration team from Norway had determined that off the coast of Syria there are undiscovered gas fields, believed to be the largest in the world. That had been kept secret till 2013. Since 2012 a coalition of countries had been working on ways to divide the spoils of the gas. They would become leading sponsors of overthrowing Assad.

After Tulsi's visit to see firsthand the truth of the Syrian people, the establishment's professional political propagandists saw a chance to discredit Tulsi whom they now hated for helping the world see the truth of the Syrian war. ISIS had a history of over 50 poison gas attacks, so it was easy to simply blame a few of those on the Syrian government or even make them up. It made no logical sense for the Syrian government to use chemical warfare since they knew it would invite reprisals from the US which they certainly did not need. But now Tulsi could be blamed for "meeting a monster who gassed his own people."

Members of ISIS at first were mostly ex-members of the Sunni Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein who were hated by the new Iraqi Shia government. They along with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood with tens of thousands of foreign fighters who had streamed into Iraq and Syria to help create a caliphate, were the members of the Syrian opposition. They were being funded and directed by the Saudis, Turkey, Qatar, the EU and America. All those Jihadist groups fighting to overthrow Syria along with ISIS and Al Qaeda were labeled as "Assad's own people whom Assad was gassing." Whom Tulsi met, and therefore "legitimized," simply because Tulsi wanted to find out the truth of the situation first hand, instead of relying on the government who had recently lied the US into the Iraq and Libya wars.

They had already tried to smear Tulsi earlier when Tulsi didn't go along with President Obama's claim about ISIS being a strictly criminal organization whose ability to recruit so many was based on a lack of jobs and money. Obama made ISIS out to look like a street gang intent on plunder. He promoted the idea that the US needed to provide a better life for Iraqis so they wouldn't turn to terror. Tulsi disagreed and said it was a religious based movement, that in order to combat ISIS and groups like them that their ideology needs to be confronted to show that Islam doesn't promote what they promote. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters were streaming into Iraq and Syria to join ISIS, mostly they were not motivated by plunder according to studies. It was shown most were middle to upper class with religious motivations. Just like the 911 hijackers also came from well off Saudi families. They all had in common a desire to take part in the creation of a Caliphate, a religious empire, a successor to the previous Caliphate.

Tulsi's words didn't sit well with Democrat leadership who wanted all Democrats to fall in line and not be critical of anything Obama said or did. Especially in that circumstance. The religious ideology of ISIS was being called into disrepute by Tulsi when ISIS promotes the same religious teachers as the Saudis. Obama didn't want to bring that into the conversation, so the result was that Tulsi's truthful view was misstated by Obama and the compliant media who smeared Tulsi as Islamophobic, pretending that Tulsi was "blaming Islam" when she literally did the opposite.

So when Tulsi went to Syria in January 2017, the professional propagandists working for the Neocon-Neoliberal establishment saw another chance to smear Tulsi to force her out of politics. She had become a bigger and bigger problem for them over the years with her unceasing criticism of regime-change wars. So they decided to invent a new criteria for politicians meeting with foreign leaders. Previously numerous politicians had met with Assad and with many other disreputable or unpopular leaders around the world, due to the accepted ideology that it was a necessary function of American diplomacy. Now all of a sudden it was a great sin! Tulsi had done something evil! Their job was to try and convince everyone that Tulsi did something unique and even illegal to "meet a dictator."

And especially they claimed it "legitimized Assad" who was now "our" enemy because Iran and Russia were on Syria's side. In politics rational self-interest was no longer to determine state diplomatic policy, now it was all about team sports. Russia and Iran are official enemies for some reason or other of the US government and therefore any nation on friendly terms with Russia or Iran can be treated as an enemy of the US government if they want to control that nation for some reason. For example sanctions are being levied on EU nations who are involved with the Nordstream gas pipeline from Russia to the EU and with Iranian oil. The US is openly telling them to purchase American oil and gas because they will sanction any person or business who is involved with Russian or Iranian oil and gas. And if any Americans resist the decree of the government on who is or is not an official enemy, then they can become their stated enemy as well even if not directly, they can enforce that propaganda objective through their compliant media and politicians. Which they do to Tulsi. American politics has become hijacked by mean girls.

The mainstream media being an arm of the Neocon-Neoliberal establishment played their part like good little sycophants and did all they could to smear Tulsi as evil for "meeting with a dictator" and "siding with Russia." All because the Neocon-Neoliberal establishment wanted Tulsi out of politics because she is critical of their regime-change doctrine and didn't blindly kowtow to the Democrat party leaders, i.e., Tulsi disrespected Obama and Hillary in their eyes. They wanted her out. Even the wannabe alt-media sycophants did their part in their hopes of moving-up in the media food chain to a high-paid propaganda job in the mainstream media.

Fast forward a few years and Tulsi announces her candidacy for president. On that very day the professional propagandists had ready the first in a relentless series of smears painting Tulsi as a pawn of Russia. Making Tulsi a servant of the official enemy of the American government. And therefore the official enemy of everyone in America. And if you don't go along with that idea, as their none too subtle psycho-logical agitprop hopes to make you believe you are also a declared Enemy of The State.

Fast forward to now, and the same smears have been pushed more and more frequently as Tulsi has been getting herself out in the public eye more and more and especially in the debates. So what happened with the massive backlash to Hillary after doing the same thing being done for months on end by the media? One day it was alright to smear Tulsi as a Putin Pawn, and the next day it wasn't?

Why?

One thing we need to understand is why Hillary felt it necessary to do it. And also we need to understand why a seemingly endless supply of sycophants for the Neocon-Neoliberal establishment and their wannabes and troll farms, why have they invested more and more of their time and energy into spreading anti-Tulsi propaganda? The answer is:

They have recently realized Tulsi Gabbard is extremely popular among centrists and on the right. And while her following on the left is small compared to the others, they believe that can easily be changed. A lot of people have fallen for the smearing propaganda about what Tulsi stands for and therefore dismiss her out of hand. Many more simply don't know much or anything about her and therefore give their support to pollsters to people like Biden simply because of name recognition as Obama's guy. With a little bit of clarification on what Tulsi really stands for, people's negative attitude towards Tulsi is fairly easy to change. Which is why the establishment looks so intent on making sure Tulsi is not seen or heard from, except through their carefully choreographed smears. Because when people get to hear from Tulsi directly without a scheming interlocutor, the debates show that she sparks a desire in people to know more about her.

There is an even bigger reason the Neocon-Neoliberal establishment and their wannabes in alt-media have been going nuts of late in pushing Russia mania over Tulsi:

Many believe that Joe Biden is not really up to the task of running for president. More and more people are losing faith that Biden can make it till the end and beat Trump. So unless something drastically changes, that leaves us with a battle between Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren. And although some polls skew favorably for Warren over Sanders, they fear that when push comes to shove that Bernie will come out on top. And they realize that if Bernie is able to win the primary, then it would be very logical and smart for Bernie (or Warren or Biden) to ask Tulsi to be VP because of her bipartisan support, which no other candidate can even come close in bringing to the table. A lot of Trump voters will switch to a ticket if Tulsi is on it. The centrists and right wing or libertarian Trump voters may not agree with everything Tulsi stands for, but they love her anyways. You can see online how much they love her, many love her more than Trump even though Trump is more in line with their political ideology.

Bernie is seen as bad enough for the establishment but someone they can handle through hamstringing him in congress, but Tulsi is seen as way too much. The Neocons are freaking out that their plans for hegemony over the Middle East will end if Tulsi has influence over an administration. They are still following Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's foreign policy, laid out in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997). The idea being that the imperative of American foreign policy is for the US to dominate over Central Asia and the Middle East in order to prevent Russia, China, and Iran from turning that most strategic part of the world into their own spheres of influence. Even though Brzezinski whom Obama claimed as a personal mentor, updated his views a few years ago and said it was time to reconcile with Russia, China, and Iran, the foreign policy establishment rejects his new direction and are still intent on following his old views which were never meant to be a permanent state of affairs. Others though do want a change. But corruption has set in over the years with various nations using their great wealth to influence American leaders to stay the course for their own benefit, even though it is bad for America and the world.

And so we come to Hillary. Some leaders in the Neocon-Neoliberal establishment, we can be certain of, are pushing Hillary to enter the race. The recent increase of "Tulsi is a Putin Pawn" propaganda was not receiving any pushback from mainstream media or politicians until along came Hillary pushing the same "Tulsi=Russian asset" propaganda. So why did they freak out over Hillary doing the very same thing that many others were doing every day?

The Neocon-Neoliberal establishment is not a monolith or a hierarchy following commands like the military. Sometimes they seem like that because they do have common enemies. For example Tulsi and Bernie are seen as enemies to the entire establishment. Tulsi and Bernie are perceived as wanting to seriously interfere with establishment plans for foreign policy (worries neocons) and predatory capitalism (worries neoliberals). While the Clintons and their camp are certainly a powerful denomination within the establishment, there are many other groups who do not want Hillary running for president, or even to show her face. They have thrown their support behind Biden, Warren, Buttigeig, and the rest. They don't fear Bernie and Tulsi winning as much as the Clintonistas fear them. They want Hillary to butt out of the race because they see her as bad mojo for their favored candidate. And for the Democrat party in general.

Besides the presidential election there are many congressional and state seats up for grabs. A lot of establishment Democrats do not want Hillary in the minds of voters, they don't want her associated with their preferred candidates up and down the ballot. Neither do the candidates themselves.

That is why Hillary got so much backlash from the mainstream media and their alt-media wannabes, and various politicians, pundits, and various establishment people and groups. They don't support Tulsi but they really wish Hillary would stay out of it. The ones defending Hillary are The Clintonistas. Either friends of Hillary and Bill, or hoping to benefit by supporting them and their camp. Regardless of how many other establishment people give Hillary grief, being part of The Clinton Gang they will shill for her as long as they can. But one thing has changed for the better because of this big blowup in the media--now it is probably politically-incorrect to say that Tulsi is a Putin Pawn. For that think Tulsi owes Hillary a thank you and a tip o' the hat.

***

This is Tulsi's video response to Hillary:

Authors Bio:
Kali has been a teacher of eastern mysticism for many years.