Saagar Enjeti: The Pseudo-Populist Mainlining Neocon Ideas into Progressive Politics

While he is undeniably a charismatic and confident host, Saagar Enjeti’s schtick is remarkably similar to that of his former employer Tucker Carlson, who also rails against elites while being one of them.

Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball are the new king and queen of alternative media. After having just quit The Hill to go fully independent, their new show “Breaking Points” immediately debuted at number one in the global politics podcast charts, comfortably overtaking well-established brands like “Pod Save America” and “The Ben Shapiro Show.” They even received the ultimate plug with an appearance on and an endorsement from Joe Rogan, a veritable blessing from the pope of pop culture.

[mintpressnews.com]

But changing the place of your dressing room and platform isn't enough to change what you do and how you do it.

A while back these 2 did a skit on fake news. They did a good job of explaining how MSCM engages in manufacturing fake news and how the reporters are controlled on how to spread a purposeful illusion. Problem was, as the skit reach about half point they slowly began diving into how they had to control their own coverage while attempting to explain theirs as acceptable. Essentially admitting they themselves are fake news. If you have to worry about pulling your punches when you're addressing a person of interest or issue, fearing your boss might receive flack from someone or their staff, or it goes outside of establishment narrative towards facts unwanted in public, then your ability to produce news with a full reliable substance is fake.

If I remember right, Ball brought up Clinton as an example. I don't remember the details on that, but lets run with it. Clinton has always been the recipient of unchallenged open mic sessions. If you understand this concept of this aspect of fake news it's easy to recognize when it's happening in interviews. Plus you have to know factual information from outside the MSCM you're currently engaged in. You just aren't allowed to go off script of the established narrative without her approval in which she or her staff can manufacture a response. In this case it's a means to address an issue that can no longer be ignored and another false narrative is needed to redirect attention towards. Case in point for example would be reasoning of the Iraq war which changed multiple times. In Clinton's case, you just can't come out and talk about how the emails that were leaked proved how her and the DNC rigged the 2016 elections within various ways. Which is why we see and hear little from her today. Her political career is toasted now. Plus Bill has another anchor on her with the Jeffery Epstein thing going on.

{“Rising” had the look and tone of a cable news show, with two well-presented and attractive hosts chatting to guests in a brightly lit studio. But it had far more substance, featuring stories and points of view that are completely ignored in the rest of corporate media. The two invited on a range of informative guests the caliber of whom is simply not found on cable news. Thus, it had a jarringly subversive quality that appealed to viewers, as if the two were smuggling forbidden but increasingly popular ideas all while maintaining a polished, corporate feel.}

The ability to take a con to higher levels can produce an abundance of popularity. I place Democracy Now in this same category, long with a number of other Magazines and Internet sources that manage to remain out of the MSCM label. If you don't have an abundance of information from independent sources that factually dispute what these sources are spewing out, you can easily be drawn into shooting your own foot. If the issue or person they're engaged with at the time is a mirror copy of the likes of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, then you're probably only getting one side of the issue that's leading you from reality.

I assure you that if you regularly use the sources I use here in this group, that after a while as you hear and read matter from MSCM you will begin to see and notice when you're being lead down a rabbit hole. You'll notice what's being left out which proves there's an establishment narrative being manufactured for you to become trapped in. You'll be left asking yourself why they didn't mention the issues you read on a constant basis. You become aware of why these issues aren't raised within MSCM and how so many are missing it. They don't want you to know the truth. It doesn't benefit them for you to know the reality of the truth.

{While he identifies as a conservative Republican, he also labels himself a pro-worker, pro-union populist.

Key to his appeal is convincing progressive audiences that, although a conservative, he is still a political outsider with views not too dissimilar from their own. Yet a look into Enjeti’s background and professional career suggests otherwise — that he is very much an insider and is pulling a similar trick to so many Republicans of late who are rebranding as anti-elite, anti-deep state warriors, all the while mainstreaming some highly problematic viewpoints to his audience.}

Trump brilliantly pulled that off on his supporters. As you read the entirety of Enjeti's background you no choice but to become very weary of and ask if he's a Manchurian candidate of a public relation firm. {The master’s program in counter-terrorism studies features modules in profiling terrorists, strategy and deterrence, Arab language, Iranian studies, and a course called “Hezbollah: a hybrid terrorist organization.” This is an institution that trains Israeli and American intelligence officials, not radical populist outsiders.}

{Until recently, Enjeti’s second podcast, “The Realignment,” was an official Hudson publication. Hosted with fellow Hudson employee Marshall Kosloff, the two lob softball questions to reactionary guests like Mike Pompeo, Niall Ferguson and Douglas Murray. The concept of the show is that there is a profound political realignment happening in America right now, as old political demarcations are broken down and new ones form. In this sense, it is a similar notion to “Rising” and “Breaking Points,” except that it is being pushed by one of the most establishment-conservative organizations in America, raising questions about how genuine this realignment really is.}

That's not a good sign! And FYI, the Robby Martin being used for some information in this article is the brother of Abby Martin who's work I use in this group regularly.

{Enjeti presents himself as an anti-war populist. “The entire reason I am interested in politics is because of 9/11 and opposition to the war in Iraq. It is my North Star and always will be,” he said in a recent episode of “Rising.” But this is difficult to square with the fact that he chose to study counter-terrorism in Israel and to work for two of the most hawkish neoconservative think tanks in America — the very same think tanks whose principals laid the groundwork for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that Enjeti claims so vociferously to oppose. That an anti-war outsider could choose to work for the likes of the Kagan family does not compute.}

{Enjeti has tried to square the circle of raging against the elites while leaving the system in place by blaming so many of America’s failings on China, combining populist rhetoric with Hudson-style foreign policy. In “A Populist’s Guide to 2020,” he claims that the malaise the country is in can be explained as in no small part due to “China’s economic warfare.”

The bad guys in Enjeti’s story of American corporations relocating eastwards to use hyper-exploited Asian workers are not the corporations themselves, nor the U.S. government, but the Chinese Communist Party, deviously convincing businesses to do so — a classic bait-and-switch maneuver.}

{While “Rising” has a distinctly progressive audience, Enjeti has been pushing the Hudson’s neoconservative talking points on foreign policy. Enjeti is an unabashed imperialist who wants the United States to control the planet. As he stated himself on “The Realignment:”

I am not for a multipolar world…I want to be the only blue water navy, I don’t want the Chinese ruling the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea.”}

In early 2020, Enjeti delighted in using the racist term “the China Virus” for COVID-19, telling “Rising” viewers that it is “the height of cynical political correctness” to get outraged at it.