Election Denying: A Favorite Tactic of All Losing Parties
Those Republicans are election deniers! True. What about Democrats? Also true.
Those Republicans are election deniers! True. What about Democrats? Also true.
Mike Benz often speaks of "the Blob." To what is he referring? I created the following transcript Dr. Drew's interview of Mike Benz:
"The Blob" is actually a term from President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, who was opining on the difficulty within the White House of getting things done because they seem to be up against an impenetrable force, an a amorphous alien monster that was more powerful than even even the Obama White House. And so he sort of coined this phrase, out of exasperation, in a certain sense, but it's been adopted in Washington. It refers to the foreign policy establishment and I'll sketch out what that is, and it's not just the foreign policy establishment within the government. It is the external stakeholders in the corporate and financial worlds who are the donor draftor class off of the government activity.
So I'll sketch that out a little bit here. The foreign policy establishment is the side of our government that faces outward rather than inward to manage the American empire, rather than the American homeland. We have government agencies that manage the American homeland, like Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor. They all face inward. They don't do international business, so to speak with, you know, Ukraine or Moldova, or Sub Saharan Africa.
We have three sides of our government--three departments or constellations of entities that face outward and those are the Pentagon, the State Department and our intelligence services, such as the CIA. Now, together, they basically form this defense diplomacy intelligence apparatus. And because they face outward and their mandate is to protect and maximize US national interests on the world stage, they have a license to do dirty tricks that domestic facing institutions are not empowered to do. So for example, they can wiretap foreign citizens. They don't need to get a warrant for it. They can bribe foreign media institutions to promote or kill stories. They can set up their own media vehicles to be able to swing hearts and minds so that another country's own parliament votes for or against a different bill there in order to get the people of a foreign country to support a US military base in the region, or a UN Security Council vote in a region. And they're they're deployed with this dirty tricks power, which involves a license to lie.
So for example, the Central Intelligence Agency under National Security Council 10-2 back in the 1940s, was given basically a license to do all sorts of criminal or illegal illegal activity as long as they maintain plausible deniability, meaning as long as the US government could plausibly deny that the Central Intelligence Agency or that the US government was behind it, they could engage in criminal activity. Now, that was all set up the foreign policy establishment, the blob, who again on the inside is State Department, Pentagon and, and CIA--we'll just say for shorthand--for the intelligence community. The social contract when that was set up in 1947 1948, was that it was for managing the American empire for the benefit of the citizens of the homeland. And it would have these dirty tricks powers. It would be able to spy. It would be able to lie. It would be able to rig elections, be able to rig media, because at the end of the day, the citizens here would benefit from it, but it would never be turned on our own citizens. That's what our constitution is for. And, and all the other you know, protections that go into being a US citizen.
That's the inside of the blob. The outside of it is the corporate and financial stakeholder class. These are the corporations and the banks, and the financial investors who are the sort of donor draftor class off of the activities of the government. When I refer to drafting you can think of it like a bike race. The strategy in a bike race is not to be out in front where the full blast of the wind is hitting you. The most efficient strategy in a bike race is to be second in line, to draft off of the person who goes first, so that they cut the wind for you so you save all your energy and are able to just overtake them on the last lap, so to speak.
So US multinational corporations, since the age of globalization, have relied on the blob, have relied on the State Department, the Pentagon to the CIA, in order to protect and secure foreign markets for their products, to protect and secure cheap manufacturing in those regions. To protect and secure against issues around tariffs or taxes or labor or regulations. And it's the job of the State Department to go in and pressure that foreign country's government. It is the job of our Central Intelligence Agency to go in and rig those elections or to go in and set up a constellation of surround-sound NGO media in order to get that country's population to support that initiative. And it's the job of the Pentagon to do both the sort of dangling threat of military intervention in the name of democracy or the civil affairs of hearts-and-minds works around psychological warfare in order to make that that happened.
Now, that is not that redounds to the benefit of US multinational corporations who operate in that region. So famous example: in the oil and gas space, for example, is Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, these companies, most of their most of their profits come from all the different shale or hydrocarbon reserves around the whole rest of the world. Other countries don't want to voluntarily just give up their oil or give up their gas or give up these these loose business partnerships where they get mostly railed in negotiations there. The government has to cut the wind for Chevron and for ExxonMobil, the government has to go in and basically coerce these foreign governments or or offer carrots and sticks. And so so those companies draft off of the activities of the blob. Now because they are also major financial donors to the political class, they are essentially donors into the decision making within the government, while their own corporate and financial interests draft off the activities of the government who does that work?
I have increasingly turned to Mike Benz to help make sense of America's obsessive and unnecessary warmongering. Joe Biden, his neocon cabinet and the DNC have already capitulated to the war state. Among the Democrats, there's no need any more to discuss whether a war is truly necessary. No need to weight the pro's and con's. No need to concern ourselves with the possibility of nuclear war. No need to ask whether the American treasury should be allocated to (massive) domestic needs. We always need more war. Full stop. But why? What is the end game? How does this pro-war ideology benefit ordinary Americans? It doesn't. As George Carlin stated so succinctly,
In this video, Mike Benz explains the big picture. I have created a transcript of Mike's comments at Real America's Voice. On a daily basis, I fear that his assessment is accurate.
Note 1: When Mike is using the term "the Blob," (as set forth in the third paragraph) he is referring to the internationalist side of the U.S. government associated with big international businesses associated with the energy market associated with the military. .
Note 2: "The Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board. A lot of people don't even know that seven CIA directors are still alive, let alone all concentrated on the board of a single organization. That's kind of the heavyweight in the censorship industry." - Mike Benz
Natalie Winters:
On this as of course, Mike Benz who I'm so honored that last minute he was able to come on, Mike, I honestly just want to toss it to you your kind of thoughts on this whole FISA debacle. If you want to start with the press conference that we just saw, or even just the forthcoming Monday vote, what you think's gonna happen?
Mike Benz:
I share an identical rage that I feel that emanating from you here for him to take to the press conference like that and and pivot to the border reciting all of the principles, "If we don't have a border, we don't have a country." Well, you know, what if we don't have a secret police in this country, a political police in this country, we don't have a country? You know, this idea that "Oh, don't worry about it. There's checks and balances on it now."
No, there's not. It's an empty check. It's a blank check for the FBI to do whatever it wants and it's bluster instead of balances. FISA is as a Senator Mike Lee said it best federal investigators stalking Americans, and there's something very sick and twisted about what's happening right now with the FISA fight. visa vie, the Republican Party. The Republican Party is in the middle of a civil war between the internationalist sect of the GOP, the Blob side of it, versus the nationalist wing of the GOP, the populist faction, and Pfizer will not be used on the blob side, the internationalist side of the GOP, that side of the GOP associated with big international businesses associated with the energy market associated with the military. In that empire managerial class of the GOP, FISA is not an issue to them. It won't be used on them, but it will be used on their opposition in the GOP Civil War. Every single right-wing populist nationalist Republican is a target of FISA. FISA is this idea that you can get around the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and use the Department of dirty tricks powers that our foreign policy establishment has to spy on foreigners, to spy on Americans if you simply use the word counter intelligence instead of intelligence. "We're not doing intelligence spying on our own people. We're doing counter intelligence spying on our people, because they might be being spied on by Russia."
Voting as a threat to democracy . . .
N. S. Lyons: “From this point forward the definition of democracy itself would begin to change: “democracy” no longer meant self-government by the demos – the people – exercised through voting and elections; instead it would come to mean the institutions, processes, and progressive objectives of the managerial civil service itself. In turn, actual democracy became “populism.” Protecting the sanctity of “democracy” now required protecting the managerial state from the demos by making governance less democratic.”
If the DNC is so confident that Joe Biden is the best choice to be President again, they should brush off his cobwebs and roll him out to debate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Marianne Williamson. It would be revealing to hear the two challengers discuss the issues, but equally important to see whether Biden could make sense for more than five minutes without a teleprompter.
But does the DNC think that the People should have a meaningful say in determining who will represent the Democrats for President? The answer is no, based upon a 2016 lawsuit against the DNC:
Update: A federal judge dismissed the DNC lawsuit on August 28. The court recognized that the DNC treated voters unfairly, but ruled that the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts:From the Chicago Tribune:
"To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC's internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary."
Rather than reflecting on the consternation everyday voters are having over the conduct of the Democratic presidential primary, the Democratic National Committee is doubling down on the assertion that the primary election belongs to the people who control the party -- not voters.
In the transcript for last week's hearing in Wilding, et. al. v. DNC Services, d/b/a DNC and Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz, released Friday, DNC attorneys assert that the party has every right to favor one candidate or another, despite their party rules that state otherwise because, after all, they are a private corporation and they can change their rules if they want.
"To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC's internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary," Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal. "To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court's emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs' pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so . . . the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court." ...
Bruce Spiva, representing the DNC, made the argument that would eventually carry the day: that it was impossible to determine who would have standing to claim they had been defrauded. But as he explained how the DNC worked, Spiva made a hypothetical argument that the party wasn't really bound by the votes cast in primaries or caucuses.
"The party has the freedom of association to decide how it's gonna select its representatives to the convention and to the state party," said Spiva. "Even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs. The party could have favored a candidate. I'll put it that way."
This was news to me in 2017 when the DNC took this position (for more on the DNC arguments, see the Plaintiff's appeal here). How many times has DNC rhetoric suggested that the DNC looks to the People to make this decision? But they clearly don't care about our opinion. This, the party that made repeated dramatic false claims that "Russians" cheated them out of winning even when the DNC itself cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination in 2016, as exposed by Wikileaks.