The Whip Behind the Curtain

How to tell the predators from the prey in the Establishment food chain

In most Western democracies, each political party appoints a ‘Whip’, who is responsible for making sure other members of that party cast their votes in accordance with party lines. In both houses of Congress, politicians that strictly adhere to their party’s policies are rewarded with promotion within the committee system, while deviation from the party stance may result in demotion and de-prioritization of the deviating politician’s projects. In other words, Whips use the committee system and promises of general intra-party success as both a ‘carrot’ and a ‘stick’, to reward ‘faithful’ voting behavior and punish defiance. A useful side effect is that the Whip’s bargaining decisions and negotiating positions reveal which issues are prioritized most heavily by the Whip’s party-elites.

Much like the Whip of a political party, the broader political establishment must exert pressure through myriad channels to incentivize ‘good’ behavior and to punish ‘bad’. Unlike any single political party, the Broader Political Establishment™ is an amorphous body comprising mainstream media, bureaucrats and government agencies, politicians of both parties, members of the judicial branch, and non-government actors. To keep all these entities ‘in line’ requires an incentive system similar to that of the political party Whip, but with a less formal structure and a less explicit purpose.

For example, as mentioned in our article “The NY Court of Appeals Just Tore Up Another Political Prosecution,” Attorney General Letitia James, responsible for the spurious civil fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump, is reportedly being considered as a candidate for the next Mayor of New York City. By polling data, the American people (especially conservatives and moderates) appear to disapprove of these political prosecutions. However, given Letitia James’ improved political trajectory and newfound stardom resulting from the trial, the Establishment appear to appreciate her work very much.

So, the moral and political priorities of the Establishment are revealed not by what they say, which is deliberately manipulative and misleading, but by how they reward those who do their bidding and punish those who dare question or defy their authority. Now for some examples.

The Carrot

First up are instances where ‘good’ behavior is rewarded. This can come in several forms. In some cases, the Establishment will reward a supposedly apolitical decision with political success, as in the Letitia James case. In other cases, the ‘reward’ is simple refusal to punish objectively wrongful or illegal behavior that benefits the Establishment and their goals.

Iranian Influence Campaign and Scandal – During the Obama Administration, the Iranian government ran a program called the Iran Experts Initiative (the “IEI”), to improve Iran’s negotiating position during nuclear discussions. The Iranian government compiled a network of Western academics and scholars intended to influence global perception of Iran by ‘whitewashing’ the Iranian regime’s oppressive policies and terrorist sympathies, publishing op-eds, and pushing Iranian views in interviews with Western news outlets. If this sounds like propaganda, you’re getting the point. And it paid off—the Obama Administration’s infamous Iran Deal not only legitimized Iran’s nuclear program, it gave them billions of dollars in cash to sweeten the deal.

What became of the Western scholars involved in the IEI, when the program eventually came to light? I assume they were shamed by the academic community, right? Blacklisted for their propagandistic endeavors? Well no. Strangely, some of the scholars involved in the program were rewarded with formal positions in the Biden-Harris administration’s State Department and the Pentagon, and are still in place today. Though the existence of the IEI was couched as a scandal to the American public, clearly the Establishment thought they deserved commendation.

Similarly, Robert Malley, a member of the State Department and one of the Biden-Harris Administration’s top envoys to Iran, was investigated in 2023 amid allegations he had shared classified information with the Iranian regime. Malley was thought to have close ties to the IEI and individuals in the Iranian regime, such that his security clearance was compromised. The blowback? Well, mainstream media was largely silent about the scandal, while the Biden-Harris White House “shielded” him from scrutiny. Malley was not even terminated from his State Department position, and still technically holds this role today. The messaging from the Establishment is clear: ‘Get caught while doing our bidding? We’ve got your back!’

Fast-forward to October 2024 and it should be no surprise that leaks continue to flow to the Iranian regime from the Biden-Harris White House. The Establishment incentive structure suggests that was the intention all along.

Lawfare

We have already discussed Attorney General Letitia James’ mayoral prospects, which look a lot like a tacit reward for her immoral prosecution of President Trump. But how can we be sure the recent spate of lawfare is an Establishment-led project, and not simply a crusade by individual bad actors? This week, evidence emerged that Nathan Wade, the former special prosecutor in the election interference case against President Trump in Fulton County, Georgia, met with the Biden-Harris White House several times while leading the prosecution. While Wade insists he cannot remember a single damn thing that was discussed in any of these meetings, it’s clear the White House actively supported the prosecution, and Nathan Wade was moving up in the world as a result. There’s evidence Mitch McConnell and Liz Cheney also silently supported these lawfare cases behind the scenes, demonstrating the dual-partisan nature of the Establishment.

Bill Clinton

Do we really need to explain this one? In this era, the era of cancel culture, of feigned indignation and of moral posturing, how is Bill Clinton still a political figurehead? The man against whom there is credible evidence of multiple instances of rape and sexual assault. The man who is known to have flown 26 times aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet.

In a similar vein, the world has reacted with total disinterest to assault allegations against Kamala Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, as well as proven revelations of his adultery and general sexual malfeasance. Now compare these cases with the indignant outrage directed at President Trump after E. Jean Carroll’s decades-old, unsubstantiated allegations against him. This double standard is no accident—it’s a perk. A perk for saying the right things and obeying the Establishment line.

The Stick

Now for the cases where the Establishment punishes any deviation from its messaging and desired goals. The key is to look for instances where, suddenly, the Establishment appears to turn on its own, or where it dramatically and abruptly lowers the bar for tolerance of malfeasance.

Eric Adams – Late last month, Democrat Mayor of New York City Eric Adams was indicted on charges relating to allegations of bribery and corruption. This took everyone by surprise. The skeptics among us viewed it as an attempt by the DOJ to appear even-handed after months of political prosecutions of President Trump. Regardless of whether Adams’ indictment had anything to do with the Trump prosecutions, the question is: Why make Adams the sacrificial lamb? Far more egregious instances of corruption, backed by far more evidence, are regularly overlooked by Democrat elites (just ask Victor Shokin). So why Adams? Why now?  

A quick look at Adams’ recent history provides the answer. At the time of his indictment, Mayor Adams had for several months been speaking out strongly against the liberal Sanctuary City policies employed by former NYC Mayor de Blasio. According to Adams (and Republicans), these policies are the reason the city has been overrun by illegal immigrants, which has contributed to (or caused) the corresponding spike in crime. As Trump mentioned during the Al Smith dinner, those are the kinds of things that will get you on the Establishment ‘naughty list’ before you know it.  

And it does not end there, either. You may recall, last year, video footage surfaced of the death of mentally ill homeless man Jordan Neely on the subway. Neely, who was threatening passengers and behaving erratically, passed away when bystander and US Marine Daniel Penny attempted to subdue Neely, placing him in a chokehold for the protection of other passengers. As soon as the story broke, the mainstream media got to work concocting George Floyd 2.0, insisting, against all evidence, race somehow played a role in Neely’s death. Mayor Adams lamented Neely’s death as a “tragedy” but refused to follow the racial messaging of the media. Instead, Adams took the logical approach, which was to discuss the city’s crime problems and mental health epidemic, arguing that Neely’s death “proves [the] need for forced hospitalizations.”

Is it sheer coincidence that, just as Adams began to go ‘off script’, he became the victim of what appears to be yet another lawfare crusade, initiated by a DOJ that we know to be corrupt? Possibly. Or is the indictment a case of the Establishment making an example out of Adams, using threat of similar prosecution as a cudgel and a warning to future potential dissenters?

Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard, former Congresswoman, US Air Force veteran, and 2020 Democratic primary candidate, was similarly punished for going against the grain. Despite Gabbard supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016, she has a different idea for the direction of the Country than other Democrats. Gabbard first made headlines for infamously exposing Kamala Harris’ hypocritical record as a prosecutor during the Democratic primaries, which some believe damaged Harris’ campaign irreparably. And before she left Congress last winter, Gabbard introduced two bills: one placing some restrictions on abortion; the other banning trans-women from competing in women’s sports. Since then, whistleblowers and the Federal Air Marshal have come forward with information showing Tulsi Gabbard had been enrolled in the ‘Quiet Skies program’, a watchlist for suspected terrorists. That’s right, Tulsi Gabbard, a veteran of our military and a long-time civil servant, was placed on a terrorist watchlist for pissing off the powers-that-be.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Despite polling well among Democrats and holding views supported by most Americans, RFK Jr. was precluded from the 2024 Democrat primaries. This wasn’t unexpected: despite RFK’s popularity and political lineage, he was never part of the Democrat ‘Cool Gang’. What was striking, however, was the smear campaign that started as soon as he endorsed President Trump. Before the endorsement, when RFK was expected to take more support from Trump than Biden, the mainstream media were critical but generally respectful of his Independent grassroots campaign. However, as soon as a Trump-RFK coalition appeared possible, the hit-pieces started to flow, and RFK was depicted as a deranged former drug addict desperately vying for media attention.

Elon Musk

In 2017, the Rolling Stone published a piece titled ‘The Architect of Tomorrow’, praising Musk’s futuristic vision and innovative technological leaps. Back then, Musk was the champion of electric vehicles, the modern-day Nikola Tesla. Everyone’s favorite, weird, left-leaning, South African, genius darling. But all that was before Musk endorsed Trump. Now?

Well, the Rolling Stone (and the rest of the mainstream media circus) have certainly turned on him. And the lawfare has been in full flow. Earlier this year, Musk (in his role as Tesla CEO) was prevented from realizing a $56 billion compensation package by the Delaware Court of Chancery in an unprecedented landmark decision. Fortunately, despite the court’s ruling, Tesla shareholders voted overwhelmingly to return the compensation package to Musk.

In other news, Musk’s company SpaceX recently announced it is suing the California Coastal Commission for “egregiously and unlawfully overreaching its authority” and engaging in “naked political discrimination” against SpaceX. SpaceX alleges the CCC denied their plan for rocket launches in California as political retribution for Musk’s public support for Trump.

As in all of the cases we’ve discussed, the motivation behind this Establishment retribution is twofold. Yes, they want to send a message to Musk and to punish him for his defiance. In fact, they appear to relish it. But there is an additional motivation. They want to send a message to Mark Zuckerburg, and any others who might be considering jumping ship and following their own compass. The message is clear. Fall in line and you may rise in the Establishment food chain. Defy us, and you become prey.

But be careful once you are no longer useful. The Establishment has been known to eat its own…