Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 29, 2024 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec

50:05

THE GREAT COWBOY - YANKEE ALLIANCE w/ MIKE BENZ

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Support the show

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, folks, the election is over and Donald Trump has won in a historic landslide.
	Now we are throwing the conservative conference to celebrate victory, but also to plan the work ahead for the road to come.
	So if you want to come, you've got to get your tickets, secure them immediately for AmericaFest.
	AmFest 2024, Phoenix, Arizona, December 19th to the 22nd.
	Go to AmFest.com and use promo code POSO. Make sure that you are there to hear from dozens of the nation's top leaders with Turning Point USA and Turning Point Action.
	You've got Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec, Tucker Carlson, Donald J. Trump, Matt Gates, potentially our next new attorney general, Dr. Ben Carson, Senator Hawley, and so many more.
	Tickets are going fast, so lock yours in now.
	You don't want to be in the overflow lot like people at the Trump rallies when they were showing up a little bit late or after the event had already reached capacity.
	Make sure you secure your tickets immediately.
	Amfest.com, promo code POSO.
	Amfest.com, promo code POSO.
	Don't come crawling to me saying, POSO, I couldn't get in.
	No.
	Secure them right now.
	Be the first.
	buy a block of tickets today.
	This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
	This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
	A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
	This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
	Deliver us from evil!
	Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's special edition Human Events special that we are doing regarding...
	The power structures that govern America and really govern what we call the globalist American empire or the Anglo-American regime, the globalist regime.
	We can see the news every day, we can see the day-to-day, but what's driving the news?
	Who are the power players that are actually making the moves on the higher-level chessboard, on the higher plane, that we can only, from time to time, get a glimpse of?
	One man has made it his mission to expose these power players, and specifically to expose their interest in censoring the internet.
	Because what's amazing about what most people will focus on is they'll say they're anti-censorship, But what Mike Benz does is explain why they are censoring you.
	Mike Benz joins us now here on Human Events.
	And Mike, would you say that's a good description of explaining what you're doing?
	You're not just saying you're anti-censorship, you're explaining why the censorship is happening.
	No, that's exactly right.
	You know, when I first started on this crusade to try to preserve free speech on the internet six or seven years ago, I think I, like everybody else, thought of this as being a sort of purely domestic or political thing.
	You know, you look up and you see the ADL is promoting censorship or the SPLC or, you know, pink haired, anti-gendered Feminists with NYU degrees.
	And it's very easy to see that low level and be like, well, that's who's censoring us.
	But then the deeper you get into it and who's behind them and who's funding them and the organizations they're a part of or who's making the censorship decision making at the higher level, you start to see basically the shape of the machine you're truly up against.
	And what we'll be talking about today, I think, is about what that structure is, how it got installed in the first place, And really, what can be done at this point to try to begin to take it on?
	Well, and there's actually something that happened.
	And as we record this, you know, it's a couple of weeks ago now.
	But so I go on and I'm doing a hit with Alex Jones, who's just been brought back to the X platform with Elon Musk.
	We Alex, Elon and myself and a coterie of A murderous row of individuals, I would say, went and did an ex-space.
	And then Alex and I were doing a hit a couple of days later, and we were talking about the need to pay attention, very close attention, to the Ukraine war conflict because of the danger of sliding into World War III. And I said, look at the moves that NATO is making.
	They've just installed, and the globalists are making, they've just installed a globalist prime minister in Poland.
	That Prime Minister is now calling for mobilization of the Western nations against Russia militarily in And his name is Donald Tusk.
	He was the former president of the EU, the European Council.
	Now we see the new chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, calling for emergency sessions and a state of emergency in Germany along these same lines, allowing for unlimited spending.
	And so Alex, and then of course, Lloyd Austin and Joe Biden, they're calling for more and more belligerent actions towards Russia and the mobilization of NATO forces.
	So we put out a tweet that says it seems like NATO is Mobilizing for war with Russia.
	We get fact checked, community noted, on X by the community notes team, but then we notice the citation that we're given is NATO. And when I peel back the layers of so many of these censorship organizations, these ministries of truth, That were found out there, Nina Jankovic, people like these, the color revolution czarinas like Nina Jankovic.
	Suddenly we find all of these disturbing ties to NATO, to the neocons, the neolibs, this Trotskyist alliance that has somehow infiltrated our government.
	And they're all pushing Internet censorship.
	And I said, I got to ask Mike Benz about this.
	Why am I getting censored by NATO? Yes.
	So to understand how NATO got into the censorship industry, it sort of helps to start to see how NATO got involved in the Internet in the first place and then went from being about free speech to being about censorship.
	So if you recall, the Internet started as a military project.
	It was created by DARPA in the 1960s, and its first use case was helping the military manage social science research data on the populations that it was managing overseas with our overseas empire, our globalist American empire, which we've had since 1898 when we took the Philippines and mostly Cuba from the Spanish.
	Should have kept Cuba.
	That's another story.
	We kept a little piece of it.
	That's right.
	We did.
	But the internet was then privatized in 1991, and immediately it was military terrain for the purpose of helping foreign dissident bloggers and news sources on television.
	The Internet be able to evade state controls over media in countries that NATO was trying to topple.
	So, for example, when NATO got involved in Serbia and Yugoslavia in 1995 to 1999, one of the things the State Department and the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy were doing were training Serbian political activists who were trying to get rid of Slobodan Milosevic to use the Internet to set up blogs and to set up Web 1.0 sites To spread basically pro-State Department propaganda around overthrowing that country's government.
	And additionally bombed the Serbian Media Center because they specifically said that it was putting out information that was in contrivance of NATO's war plans.
	Totally, totally.
	So the military has understood the paramount importance of media, especially in color revolutions.
	Totally.
	So the military has understood the paramount importance of media, especially in color revolutions.
	There's really two ways to overthrow a government.
	And this is what the Anglo-American empire has been doing.
	Lawrence of Arabia, for example, is about the British covert ops, essentially, to rally the people of a country to overthrow their government.
	At that point, it was the Arabs and the Ottomans.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So there's two ways to basically pull off a revolution.
	One of them is you go to the military of that country and you get a certain critical mass of their generals to defect.
	And so he who has the guns essentially makes the rules, so to speak.
	And so you can have a military coup.
	But then, you know, starting with the Brits, but then really there was American innovation poured into it after World War II. There was a second strategy that was devised to be able to topple governance.
	Which involved having it be a people-powered rather than a military-powered revolution.
	If enough people within the country took to the streets and destabilized it and the people from the trade unions took to the streets and the criminals who were prosecuted by that country's legal system took to the streets and the drug dealers and the fringe minority groups who feel persecuted.
	and the media personalities and the people who run the railroads and everybody shuts down the country essentially and then January 6th then, if it was what it was advertised, so to speak, the end stages of a color revolution look remarkably like what we were told January 6th was.
	I would say, by the way, probably the most recognizable color revolutions that Americans, at least in the modern age, would be familiar with is the Arab Spring.
	Yes.
	Well, that was the culmination of free speech on the internet in the eyes of the blob, the foreign policy blob.
	And everybody talks about how it was all driven by Twitter 1.0.
	Yes.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	And it really was the high watermark of the test case of free speech as a military instrument in the eyes of the military industrial complex, the State Department and the CIA. You had, you know, during the Arab Spring, this is 2010 to 2012, One by one, all of the adversary governments that were hostile to the U.S. State Department were toppled by their own people, is how it was sold.
	Tunisia, Egypt, several others.
	But they were all organized on Facebook and Twitter using hashtags and Facebook rallying.
	It was an internet-organized revolution.
	Right, and they even tried to spill this over into Iran at the same time, the Green Revolution.
	Yes.
	No, exactly.
	And in fact, the State Department's Jared Cohen, who worked in the policy planning staff, which is the interstitial link between the CIA and the State Department.
	It's how we synchronize overt and covert diplomacy.
	The interagency.
	I always do that.
	The interagency.
	I like that.
	You know, so Jared Cohen made a personal phone call in 2009, the year before the riots kicked off.
	Twitter had wanted to do this temporary shutdown for maintenance on the site that happened to coincide with the 48-hour lead-up to the Iranian election.
	But Twitter was unaware when it announced its scheduled maintenance that the State Department and the CIA were running an operation to have Iranian dissidents Promote the alternative to Ahmadinejad.
	And so Jared Cohen from the State Department made a personal call to Twitter to keep the site open and Twitter complied.
	Now, Jared Cohen would then go on to, after he left the State Department, to join Google, and specifically Google Jigsaw, which created the first AI censorship superweapons that now allow tens of millions of tweets and Facebook posts and YouTube videos to be shut down instantly using essentially word embeddings.
	This is a technique that Jared Cohen's team developed at Jigsaw, and he was actually the person who made that phone call to facilitate regime change in Iran.
	Just to buffer your point there.
	But essentially what happened after, everything was looking sky high for free speech on the internet from 1991 until 2012, 2013. And then a funny thing happened on the way to the coup in Ukraine in 2014. When the Maidan coup happened, Then this was, again, a U.S.-U.K.-NATO-orchestrated coup.
	Victoria Nuland was handing out cookies and water bottles to the right sector throngs who – January 6th, democratically elected President Yanukovych out of office in Ukraine after getting $5 billion worth of collective funding from the State Department, democratically elected President Yanukovych out of office in Ukraine after getting $5 billion worth of collective funding After that coup in February, March 2014, there was a countercoup.
	You know, much of it is alleged to be sort of Russia backstopped, but the Crimea annexation happened where the people who lived in Crimea voluntarily voted in a referendum to join the Russian Federation and the Luhansk and Donetsk, the eastern provinces there in Ukraine, They basically broke away.
	They declared themselves breakaway states, not subject to the sort of U.S. Embassy-run Kiev government.
	And when that happened, NATO freaked out and said, oh my god, these people are reading Russia Today online.
	They're reading Sputnik.
	They're in their own Facebook groups.
	They have their own Twitter personalities.
	Oh my god, they have their own independent media system, and that's why they didn't go along with the coup.
	We need the military to be much more forceful in its control over media.
	So they started with these NATO centers of excellence and this NATO censorship infrastructure.
	NATO linked up with the Atlantic Council, which has seven CIA directors currently on its board.
	Seven former number one heads of the CIA are all on the board of the Atlantic Council, which is essentially a sister group of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is our top CIA cutout.
	The Atlantic Council also has a We had a formal partnership with Burisma to funnel deal flow, essentially using the battering ram of NATO to coerce favorable Ministry of Foreign Affairs actions towards these Ukrainian gas companies, including the US State Department.
	And so you had NATO begin to say, you know what?
	I think there was another angle that Burisma took in terms of currying favor with the US government.
	Government official, and they put their son on his...
	Can you remember on the board someone?
	There was a name...
	It escapes me.
	I'm so sorry.
	I apologize to the fans.
	I apologize to the millions listening out there.
	Benz, I don't know.
	What can I say, man?
	In the biz, sometimes those names...
	The son, he was like the vice president or something.
	I can't remember.
	Probably not important.
	Probably not important at all.
	And, you know, not only was it, you know...
	Hunter, who shall not be named, but it was also Coper Black, who had spent 30 years in the CIA and received the State Department's highest medal of distinction.
	And served on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.
	Yes.
	The Daily Beast described him as Mitt Romney's Sherpa to the Central Intelligence Agency.
	And then Hunter Biden himself served on the advisory board of the National Democratic Institute, which is the DNC branch of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is, as I've discussed, is our premier CIA cutout.
	So the intelligence fingerprints were all over the Ukraine operation.
	And the natural gas pipeline story, seizing the gas pipelines from Russia and basically paying off Houston and London gas companies where Gazprom used to make those profits.
	But essentially what happened is NATO said, wait a second, wait a second.
	We've always looked at the internet like free speech is a good thing because the internet has always been under our control.
	We've always been able to use this to create insurgencies to overthrow governments.
	Jared Cohen himself, who I mentioned earlier, Described the internet as essentially a color revolution steroid injection that you could quickly and immediately do what used to take decades in terms of running operations out of CIA station houses or embassies or consulates and manually meeting with every leader and having to bribe every person on a one-by-one basis instead of aggregating
	everybody under a common messaging rally, evading state control over media and just having it all organized publicly like that.
	But the issue was, well, I've got to throw out there.
	So the counter coup happens in Ukraine, but then there's another counter coup that happens in another country.
	In 2016, that drives them absolutely insane.
	And that's when people, some of whom served in that same intelligence community, took those very same tactics and took those very same techniques and applied them to the United States and applied them to U.S. social media.
	People like myself, people like my friend Douglas Mackey, who has been charged and sentenced to seven months for the power of memes, because we took all of those tactics and applied them To a populist uprising in the United States, which culminated in the election of Donald J. Trump.
	That's exactly right.
	So you had this NATO censorship infrastructure in Central and Eastern Europe.
	You know, this was not even controversial at the time.
	Wait a minute.
	You're not supposed to do that.
	We're the only ones who are supposed to be allowed to do that.
	Right, right.
	You know, I mean, we've been playing games in German elections since, you know, since the day World War II ended.
	But But when the Brexit referendum happened in June 2016, the NATO censorship apparatus moved westward to the UK. And you had the UK Foreign Office and GCHQ and the British Ministry of Defense and MI6 and this whole Richard Dearlove group that would then go on to basically create Russiagate with this fake dossier.
	Right, which is why Christopher Steele comes out of London.
	Exactly, exactly.
	So it moved westward with Brexit to the UK, and then when five months later Trump was elected, that was it.
	There was now a total US, UK, Brussels consensus that we needed, that the internet now had to adopt.
	It started as a free speech model because free speech was good for us.
	Now free speech was backfiring because Brexit was an internet phenomenon.
	Nigel Farage was only a household name because of his YouTube videos.
	Making fun of, you know, Herman Van Rompuy and European Parliament videos.
	That's how he got most of his play.
	I love that video.
	I still watch that video.
	I watch it for power.
	I watch it before we do the show.
	I watch it this morning or after my rosary.
	Right, so you get Nigel Farage, and you get with the power of people like Raheem Kassam at the time, then you get Trump with the power of people online, like I said, Douglas Mackey, Raheem again, myself, and suddenly you're starting to see this younger generation apply these same things that we've learned and we've seen other people do to the internet that say, hey, we could use these for domestic politics, and it turns out that they're really, really effective.
	Yeah, they're incredibly effective, and they're...
	On the internet, because it was always W after W, so to speak, for the military-industrial complex from 1991 until 2014 through 2016, there was no Operation Mockingbird-style control apparatus to serve as a gatekeeper to contain narratives or high-profile...
	There was no Operation Mockingbird-style control apparatus to serve as a gatekeeper to contain Narratives or high-profile accounts.
	In the 2016 election, I'll give you a great example of this.
	In the 2016 election, if you went to YouTube, the number one news channel on all of YouTube was Alex Jones Infowars, right?
	So Alex Jones was considered like, whatever, we don't need to worry about that guy.
	We've got...
	Because they've already got the Mockingbird mainstream media, so they said, we don't have to worry about this stuff.
	Who cares about Alex Jones?
	It was Alex Jones and Young Turks, and they were always going back and forth.
	And that was it.
	Yeah.
	Alex Jones had more...
	On the day that he was...
	He assassinated in 2018. His channel had more views than CNN's on YouTube.
	One man, one independent media personality, you know, grew to be bigger than the mega behemoth broadcast company that George Bush personally put on airplanes to propagandize the Gulf War.
	So, you know, at that point, gatekeepers were needed.
	You needed essentially a digital mockingbird operation.
	And from 2017 through, you know, basically the 2020 election, 2022, obviously it continues today.
	But you had NATO declare this new doctrine, which Jen Stoltenberg articulated as, from tanks to tweets.
	We need to no longer think about the, and you can find this video on YouTube where he's articulating this doctrine and all the NATO 2030 white papers about how we need to reorient NATO's capacity from being primarily focused on the military to being intensely focused on the media because the nature of war has changed.
	This is before the 2022 military outbreak in Ukraine.
	At the time, all the military theoreticians and all the U.S. Army War College, everyone was saying, you know what, kinetic war is dead.
	It's now all moved to hearts and minds control over who gets elected.
	That's what war is about now.
	Because they were looking at things from the perspective of Crimea and eastern Ukraine and Trying to penetrate so-called authoritarian countries in these color revolution type models.
	And so you had billions of dollars pour into this.
	You had the universities all onboarded.
	You had the doctrinal shift, as I mentioned, from tanks to tweets, meaning we're no longer just primarily focusing on tanks.
	NATO's primarily focusing on tweets.
	And then you had the government roles.
	This was the same network.
	It was the Atlantic Council Who came up with what they called the forward defense blueprint.
	They couldn't call it offense.
	They had to call it forward defense.
	It's incredible.
	But they were the ones who came up with the idea to have the Department of Homeland Security have a permanent domestic censorship Capacity.
	Which, by the way, I'll throw out there the point of the reason that they need censorship is because whenever they try to prop up their own inorganic or artificial type of, you know, promotion arm, they're horrible at it.
	They're so bad at tweets.
	You get these really terrible, like, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter references that are just bad, and then you get this extremely cringe NATO-backed online Organizations like the NAFO fellas.
	And they're just absolutely nuts.
	They're so fake.
	They're so artificial and just truly disgusting.
	And so when, you know, when they realize how these things always fall flat on their face, they just turn to censorship because that's the only thing that they've found that can really stop our side, my side, from getting out.
	Yeah, if they weren't cringe, we would be screwed.
	I mean, to sum it up, I mean, You ever see that picture of the new Ireland Ministry of Truth czar?
	The guy that looks like he's straight out of the Goonies?
	Yeah, like a guy who should be locked in the basement somewhere.
	Right, to scare little children or something.
	That is kind of like their level when it comes to You know, psychological persuasion.
	They fixate on so hard.
	When I first started being in these people's Zoom calls and create, you know, because a lot of this stuff they were doing in the open in 2017, 2018, I was working on a book and a documentary about them.
	So I would spend my whole day just inside their own conversations and inside their own, you know, YouTube videos and things like that.
	And I would listen to these things and I'd go to one of their YouTube things.
	They would have, like, 42 views.
	And this would have, like, Michael Hayden would be in there, and Jen Stoltenberg would be in there, and, you know, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs would be in there.
	You'd have all of these absolute heavyweights of what makes the world turn, and they would introduce the conference with, we're using this hashtag, and please like and share this video, and we want to, you know...
	And it goes nowhere.
	It's like, I'm looking at this thing three weeks later, it's got 42 views.
	You know, my kid sister could make a video about pizza pie and get, you know, 100x this.
	And so, but that also compounds the terror from their perspective, which is their feeling of utter helplessness unless they censor because they can't organically promote these dog water ideas.
	Well, let me pause there because we're hitting about the halfway mark here.
	And so you've explained, so this is why NATO is censoring.
	But here's the other question.
	What is setting the agenda of NATO? What makes them so desperate to want to do this?
	What are the forces behind them?
	And you've talked about this before, the Yankee-Cowboy alliance that drives American foreign interests.
	And I wonder if you could take some time, we've got about 20 minutes left, to just really pick into what this is.
	Well, it's a fascinating concept that I sort of came across while trying to do research for the book I've been writing, which is, this is a concept that came out of sort of left-wing populists who were supporters of JFK and were bewildered at how to try to piece together the political forces behind his assassination.
	This is sort of the origins of this thing called the Yankee Cowboy Theory.
	Let me sketch it out first.
	There's a concept coined by this guy, Carl Oglesby, and picked up by Peter Dale Scott and these other sort of 1960s, 1970s left-wing researchers, that American power is basically divided into two competing factions, one called the Yankees and one called the Cowboys.
	Now, the Yankees are comprised of this northeast corridor set The establishment set that had existed since before America's founding, it's basically the linkage between New York City and London.
	It's high finance, it's certain high tech industries, and it's essentially started out as being these A cluster of small powerful families in the Northeast that we today sort of think of as being sort of the coasts, if you will, the coastal power structures.
	We now sort of think of California, for example, as sort of being a Yankee faction.
	It was not at the time in the 1960s and 70s because at the time California was a red state.
	And the military-industrial complex was, before it moved to Arlington in the 80s with Reagan, it was out west.
	So you had this Northeast Corridor Yankee power faction, which was essentially banking and finance.
	And then you had a second power structure, which started out as the Southern Rim, and it was called the Cowboys.
	This is what the theory sort of posits.
	And the Southern Rim basically stretching from the South Down through Florida into Texas and then at the time it was conceived of as stretching into California, although now I think it's easier to understand California as being a firmly Yankee thing.
	But essentially the Cowboys power base was in the military and the energy sphere and in certain other industrial sectors like agriculture.
	And you essentially had money as the power from the Yankees and muscle as the power from the Cowboys.
	And these sort of early theoreticians of this concept talked about how, in the early days of our country, you had this split between the North and the South in the Civil War.
	You had the Yankee, Abe Lincoln, And the sort of cowboy Ulysses S. Grant factions and how the Yankees sort of...
	And they're the agrarians, right?
	The cotton, the plantation, you know, just dynasties down there.
	Exactly, exactly.
	And so the cowboy faction, exactly, it started out as being agriculture and it had some of a military touch point in so far as when we declared the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, The US effectively took over South America, and big sugar was essentially the predecessor to big oil, and big tech is now sort of the successor to big oil.
	But our empire went from being sort of big sugar, big ag, to big oil, big gas, to big tech.
	That's kind of been the succession of our power projection in many respects.
	And much of that big ag was a cowboy thing, if you will, because you had these agricultural companies who effectively took over South America.
	The concept of a banana republic that we think of as a dysfunctional third world country's rundown way of running a government actually comes from the The concept of United Fruit's banana territory.
	United Fruit was a U.S. company that was backed by our Department of War before it changed its name to the Department of Defense.
	In the State Department, we installed essentially United Fruit to run the governments of countries like Guatemala and other Latin American regions.
	But essentially, during...
	Well, and the left, it was the left that wrote all of this.
	Everything you're citing is chapter and verse from the old left.
	And they used to be the ones who talk about it.
	Now we come in and apply this stuff to current affairs and we get called conspiracy kooks and nuts and fringe with the aluminum foil.
	It's like, wait, this was your book.
	I'm sure what you're citing is all New Republic stuff from outlets that are no fan of conservatives.
	And I'm hedging my words here because I don't want to get called a leftist.
	But the fact is, it actually gets worse because the theory posits that the Yankees won the Civil War and the Cowboys played this junior position role to our Yankee empire.
	But then with World War II, And then there was this huge infusion into the military-industrial complex.
	And that complex was concentrated with production facilities in California and in Texas and our military projection, all the bases we have in Florida.
	So you had these Southern Rim entities, which went from being sort of primarily agriculture to having a tremendous energy and military capacity That now rivaled what was happening in the Northeast.
	Because one of the reasons the North won the Civil War was because that was where the factories were, to make the cannonballs.
	They had production capacity.
	And rail.
	Right, right.
	So they had the higher tech.
	They had the military.
	They had this production economy.
	But when the cowboy territory has begun to get this big production capacity, through the military sphere and through energy, because all of our energy is basically in that southern rim, all of our oil and gas is stretching from the Permian Basin to the Gulf.
	You mentioned the Banana Republics, so how does this play into our power projection now?
	Because the cowboy apparatus from from you can also sort of think of the Yankees as being more like Democrats.
	And the Cowboys is sort of loosely representing up until very recently the Republicans.
	Because the cowboy apparatus from from you can also sort of think of the Yankees as being more like Democrats.
	And the Cowboys is sort of loosely representing up until very recently the Republicans.
	And we develop.
	This Yankee-Cowboy alliance developed the ability to overthrow governments.
	The Cowboy faction, we think of the Cold War from 1940 up until 1991 as being about You know, a war on communism around the globe and U.S. CIA and State Department and DOD and military capacities to basically overthrow governments that were communist to bring them into the American empire.
	And we developed playbooks to do this.
	And these were networks based in sort of cowboy muscle and Yankee money to do it.
	And these networks sort of went back and forth.
	You know, there was The takedown of JFK was said to be sort of a cowboy coup against the Yankees.
	Which happens in Texas.
	Right, exactly, in Dallas.
	And then the Nixon takedown was said to be sort of the revenge of the Yankees, seizing power back from Nixon.
	And then you had the turnover back to the Cowboys with Reagan, and then the turnover back to the Yankees.
	And it's sort of like Game of Thrones and the houses are just sort of sharing who, you know, switching out, but it's always the High Lords.
	And then this brings you, this of course brings you to Trump, who doesn't have the backing of either of these factions, and in fact, politically takes down the Clintons, who have the backing of the Northeast faction, And then the Bushes, who are the backing of the Texas faction, the Cowboys, and suddenly he becomes this president who doesn't have a mafia, if you will, in government at that power level.
	And when he looks at foreign policy and foreign power projection, He says, what the heck are we doing in Afghanistan?
	We're not getting anything out of there.
	There's no minerals.
	Why do we go to Iraq and not take the oil?
	Because he's not operating through these power structures that you're talking about.
	So bringing people into the financial system, which, by the way, faces a direct threat from BRICS. This is why Russia has been able to successfully withstand the sanctions because they built a parallel economy from the Yankees.
	And the same way that they don't need the cowboys because they've got their own oil.
	So they are self-sufficient.
	And so in order to make countries dependent on your power structure, you expand your empire by expanding your influence.
	But Trump isn't thinking about expanding financial and energy empires.
	He just wants to be a good president.
	And so for the first time in years, we have a president who's not listening to either of these factions.
	This, of course, is in turn why they hate him and also why they seek to drive him from office, which culminates in, as we said, A, essentially, a soft color revolution which occurs domestically in the United States in 2020. That's exactly right.
	You had these two power factions, the Yankees and Cowboys, which had been at war with each other since, you know, since the Civil War, and in this, you know, constantly, you know, trying to coup each other, constantly trying to cooperate where they can, make money together where they can, But always trying to jockey for who's number one or number two.
	And then suddenly in comes this internet powered meme magician who just sandblasts both of them out of basically popular acceptance and out of political power.
	And so now instead of jockeying for number one and two, they're both would be Irrelevant, effectively, if you had a president who was focused on domestic priorities instead of foreign policy, who was focused on the American homeland instead of the American empire.
	So what happened in 2016 is you basically had this detente declared between the Yankee-Cowboy War, and it became the Yankee-Cowboy Alliance.
	The Yankee-Cowboy alliance against Trump, against populism.
	It wasn't just Trump also.
	As Trump rode to power, he also rode on the heels of Brexit.
	And all over the EU at the time, NATO was terrified that the EU was going to fall apart because Brexit was going to happen in France, it'll exit in Italy, Grexit in Germany, Spexit in Spain.
	So the EU is going to come undone.
	So NATO is going to come undone.
	There'd be no way to enforce IMF debt.
	The world, the rules-based international order would all collapse.
	Which, by the way, as a great point to bolster what you just said there, when Zelensky just came to the United States, he met with three major power functions.
	So he met with the United States political leaders, right?
	He met with the head of the House, the head of the Senate, and the president.
	He met with the military leaders.
	He went and gave a speech at the NDU, the National Defense University, and he met with a third entity, the World Bank.
	It's right there, folks.
	Right in front of your face.
	As Steve Bannon would say, it's not the deep state because it's in your face.
	So the goal is to make these countries dependent on your power structure, and then you get more power.
	It's as simple as that.
	Um, and so because you have these entities out there that want to break out of that power structure or don't want to go along with this, um, pushing for a rise of a multipolar world, pushing for the rise of bricks, pushing for a parallel economy, or by the way, countries like India that are happy to work with you, but want to maintain their own national sovereignty.
	They would prefer to be nation states, uh, Something with Trump, by the way.
	And Benz, you know, I'll put you on the spot a little bit because I've never really said this publicly, but this is one of the reasons that when people go to Trump, they say, well, what are your power bases?
	And, you know, because he doesn't have the Yankees or the Cowboys.
	So he's going to you find a small business, you find a lot of small to medium sized industry across the Midwest, which still exists, even though it's being choked out.
	Honestly, you find a lot of Vegas, you find casinos, Steve Wynn, Sheldon Adelson when he was around, then you also, of course, people like Dana White.
	And so it's sort of this hodgepodge of other moneyed assets throughout the United States, but not really anyone who's directly related to either of those power structures.
	No, that's exactly right.
	I mean, he's basically, you know, it's almost now the Yankees, the Cowboys, and the Pirates.
	You know, I mean, Trump is basically trying to put together a little pirate ship with a motley crew of outcasts.
	We are extremely motley.
	Right.
	But, you know, hopefully, I mean, it's It's that scene in The Patriot where Gibson's down there in South Carolina.
	They're like in the swamp tavern and they're recruiting the rebels.
	And his son is like, it's Heath Ledger.
	And he's like, father, are these the kind of men we want to be working with?
	And he says, son, these are exactly the kind of men we want to be working with.
	No, exactly.
	Exactly.
	No, and it is, you know, this is the sort of thing, though, what you're taking on Is so vast and you're starting from scratch that it's going to be a long, long...
	I mean, this is something that's going to take decades to have any sort of consolidated institutional power wrapped around.
	I mean, the Yankee cowboy stuff goes back centuries.
	Every single career in Washington, every single person who's in the civil service or the foreign service Is either in the Yankee or the cowboy faction.
	Whether they know it or not, by the way.
	Right, right.
	Now, what's been very interesting, actually, is to watch as some of these dynamics have evolved, because I actually think over the past several years, a lot of people who started out as being, you know, in the cowboy camp have actually moved over into that pirate camp more.
	You're seeing this in Ukraine, for example.
	Ukraine is probably the biggest issue that divides the cowboys from the pirates, if you will, in the sense that there is this growing caucus.
	Ukraine funding started as being basically unanimous from the GOP, and then it's more and more you see people saying, hey, we need to focus on the homeland, not the empire.
	I think it's up to almost 90 votes now.
	In the US, including even the speaker, who I'm not even opining on whether he's been good or bad so far, but he has now at least begun to say, hey, you know what?
	We need to put conditions on this.
	There is that fracturing happening now, and that's why they're so frantic to prop up someone like Nikki Haley, a true captured cowboy, if there ever was one, cowgirl.
	And that's why you have Jamie Dimon Yep.
	And Larry Fink from BlackRock, because they want the discussion to be between...
	And Reid Hoffman.
	Right.
	Yes, exactly.
	They want the discussion to be, you either get a Yankee or a cowboy.
	They don't want you to be able to have this third option.
	Which, by the way, and Richard Barris said, and it went viral, and he took a lot of slings and arrows for it on this show just a couple of weeks ago.
	He said, if Nikki Haley is installed as the vice president to Trump, which is the current play, Then that gives them the perfect reason to take Trump out, whether they JFK him or otherwise, because then Nikki Haley comes president the same way LBJ then ascended to the presidency.
	He was their guy, she's their girl.
	Yeah, no, that's exactly right.
	I mean, I would...
	I hate it, but...
	You know, and interestingly, actually, I should note that Jared Cohen, the CIA State Department architect of the digital color revolution blueprint, the guy who made the personal call to Twitter.
	You know, and interestingly, actually, I should note that Jared I should note that Jared Cohen,
	the CIA State Department architect of the digital color revolution blueprint, the guy who made the personal the CIA State Department architect of the digital color revolution blueprint, the guy who made the personal call to Twitter and who personally oversaw the construction of the AI censorship death stars, actually wrote a book completely divorced from his other work when Trump took office, and it was about what happens when presidents die in office.
	Just, you know, in his spare time, for no reason whatsoever, decides to spend six months of his life writing a book on what happens when presidents die in office.
	Definitely not anything remotely related to his other work, of course.
	So, you know, I totally agree with that analysis.
	And, you know, look, there's a long history of vice presidents essentially running a presidency.
	You can make the argument that Dick Cheney...
	I was going to say Bush and Reagan.
	Certainly in a lot of elements of foreign policy.
	Yeah, I mean, you can make the argument, you know, Dick Cheney was Darth Cheney, you know, to the Democrats.
	SNL, you know, basically declared him to be the president during the Bush one years.
	Probably just because, you know, W was just too incompetent.
	Which by the way, speaking of SNL during those years, there's actually an episode of SNL, I want to say it's from 2008, where they actually make fun of George Soros for his ability of manipulating currency in order to destabilize governments and to put them into debt.
	And I'm watching this thing going, Like, pinch me.
	Is somebody playing a trick on me?
	That there was this one brief moment, you know, kind of right before all the political tide shifted, where they actually admitted the truth.
	And I'm sure that all of the people who, you know, who were behind that sketch have been totally disappeared at this point.
	That it's like, yes, I am George Soros.
	Yes, we are taking over the country.
	We are using financial power.
	So yes, in this, by the way, obviously, in this analysis, George Soros is one of the chiefs of the Yankee tribe.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	He's the total embodiment of it.
	And it's a good thing that's in New York and not Arkansas, because that sketch could not be run today.
	You know, on this sort of, you know, what do you do if you don't have a mafia question, you know, I try to remind people that the GOP power, what made the Cowboys able to compete with the Yankees after the Yankees won the Civil War was this Department of Dirty Tricks that the Republicans had that the Democrats actually really didn't.
	You know, this anti-communist This warfighting capacity that came out of the Republican wing, that came out of oil intelligence, that came out of the Houston Energy Mafia, this cowboy wing, was the power base that allowed the cowboys to sort of hold their own with the Yankees.
	And the thing that Trump ran on is sort of antithetical to the financial interests Of those cowboys.
	And so he doesn't have the muscle to fight back when the Justice Department comes after him.
	He's got nobody at the CIA who's going to play dirty tricks back on him.
	He's got nobody at the Justice Department who's going to play dirty tricks back on him.
	So, you know, it's like being in a thumbie war fight where somebody else gets to do the, you know, the Yeah, exactly.
	The only way to stop that is when those people fear that you're going to do it back to them.
	I mean, this is the way the nuclear arms race essentially ended.
	It was because other people started making nuclear bombs, and it was like, okay, you know what, actually, maybe Maybe we should stop this because this could actually backfire because they might do it to us.
	And so that's sort of what kept the equilibrium.
	And Trump not...
	This is one of the issues of sort of what do you actually do in this situation because Trump didn't actually make You know, they were concerned about the oil and gas interests in the Caspian Sea and in Eastern Europe.
	They were concerned about cutbacks to these democracy programs.
	You know, they were concerned about what would happen to the stocks of, you know, Exxon and Chevron and Halliburton if Ukraine was, you know, It was essentially threatened by Russia, and then all these $10 billion agreements that were inked between Houston companies and the Ukrainian government,
	what would happen to those if you didn't have a CIA, State Department, Pentagon battering ram that the Biden administration wanted to continue from the Obama government?
	Because if you remember, we were just talking about vice presidents essentially running the presidency.
	Well, Joe Biden ran The Obama administration's Ukraine policy.
	It was, you know, the Council on Foreign Relations called Joe Biden Mr. Foreign Policy, you know, back in the 1970s and 80s.
	He had been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for over 40 years, including either chairman or ranking member for 10 of those.
	So the triple partition plan for Iraq was written by Tony Blinken when he was a Senate staffer for Joe Biden.
	Ben, we are just about out of time here.
	I'm looking at the clock.
	It's only about a minute and a half left.
	Please tell our listeners that you're writing a book about this.
	Please tell us this book is coming out.
	It's going to come out in 100 years, but it's going to be a banger.
	I promise you that.
	Mike, where can people go to follow you, to follow your work, and to support everything you do?
	Sure, you can find me on x at MikeBenzCyber, all one word, at MikeBenzCyber, and my foundation is Foundation for Freedom Online.
	We are trying to restore the golden age of the internet, and we got a ton of momentum.
	Thanks, Jack, and to Human Events.
	And you guys are doing an amazing job and really the tip of the spear.
	And by the way, huge W's from Elon Musk, from Alex Jones and all.
	That would not have happened if not for the efforts of Mike Benz's cyber.
	So you need to be following this guy.
	You need to be supporting him.
	And folks, look, I know sometimes with what we're outlining, it feels like all the power of hell is turned upon us.
	But you know what they say?
	They say when you're going through hell, keep going.
	And that's what Mike Benz is going to do.
	That's what Jack Posobiec is going to do.
	And that's what Human Events is going to do.

▲