Latest / UK Column Radio / J Michael Waller & Big Intel; How The CIA And FBI Went From Cold War Heroes To Deep State Villains

Transcript

J Michael Waller & Big Intel; How The CIA And FBI Went From Cold War Heroes To Deep State Villains · UK Column Radio

0:08
Good afternoon, and welcome to a UK column viewers and listeners. I have
0:13
a very special guest with me today. I think this is going to be
0:16
a really interesting interview. It's brought a lot of things to my mind,
0:23
things that I was looking at personally many years ago. But this particular individual
0:30
has got a really fascinating background and has also done a lot of work on
0:35
a number of publications and more recently on a book, and we're going to
0:40
be talking not only about his background but also the work on that book,
0:43
and I think that's going to lead us into some really interesting subjects around society
0:49
in the West and how we've seen major changes and what some of those causes
0:55
some of the causes for those changes are. So I'm going to welcome straight
0:59
away Jay Michael Waller. Thank you very much for being with us today.
1:03
It's great to be with you, Brian. I think the easiest way to
1:07
introduce to you is just to pop up your own CV from your website,
1:11
because you've really done such a huge amount. But it says here that you're
1:17
presently president of Georgetown Research, a political risk and private intelligence company in Washington,
1:23
DC. You're a senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy,
1:30
founding editorial board member of NATO's peer reviewed Defense Strategic Communications Joeneral. It's
1:37
twenty fifteen eighteen. You hold a PhD in International security affairs from Boston University,
1:45
and interestingly, you've received your military training as an insurgent with a Nicaraguan
1:51
Democratic Force CONTRAS. For thirteen years, you were the Walter and Leonora Anna
1:59
Berg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, d
2:04
C. Where you designed and taught the world's only graduate program on public diplomacy
2:10
and political warfare. And if I add a little bit to that from the
2:15
Center for Security Policy, because that mentions that you were an instructor with a
2:23
naval postgraduate school in Monterey, California. And I'm inclined to pop that in
2:28
because We've got some relations who live in that area and I'm delighted to say
2:34
I visited, But I don't know where the school was or whether it's still
2:38
in existence in Monterrey, but a fascinating CV over to you add anything that
2:46
I've missed, and also just tell us a little bit about yourself, and
2:52
I think you're going to be leading into a remarkable career which seemed to begin
2:57
in a church. It did began usually in this case, I was an
3:02
undergraduate at George Washington University in nineteen eighty three, so Reagan's first term,
3:09
and through a series of sort of accidents or fortuitous circumstances, I was recruited
3:20
as a student into the CIA to collect intelligence on Soviet support for international communist
3:29
movements and guerrilla terrorist movements in the Western Hemisphere, so on the American southern
3:35
border. Later on, I was part of a group that infiltrated and disrupted
3:40
Soviet International Front organizations. And this was at the peak of the Soviet Soviet
3:45
active measures campaign against American and British new military modernization. So it was through
3:53
these unusual experiences and personal connections that I was able to get a look at
4:00
life inside the US Intelligence Services. I was not an intelligence officer. I
4:05
was not an employee of the CIA, but I worked directly for CIA Director
4:10
Casey through a cutout, through a privately funded network that it turns out he
4:15
was funding out of his pocket because he didn't trust the CIA bureaucracy to be
4:18
able to do his job. And can I just reflect back that from many
4:25
years ago. I did twenty one years in the Navy, which was principally
4:29
the Cold War era, so I left in ninety three, but most of
4:33
my time had been Cold War, and I do remember sending off the old
4:39
signal, usually of something innocuous like the weather, which went to Langley,
4:44
Virginia, and there was certain amount of intelligence material which I handled, And
4:53
part of your book actually got me thinking about that time. I'll just throw
5:00
now that was to do with the problems with the Walker brothers, who shared
5:03
a lot of secrets with the Russians at a particular point, and I saw
5:09
the huge effects that it made. But I've just echoed that back, because
5:13
my only contact with the depth of the intelligence services that you've been connected with
5:20
and working with was just those sort of fairly innocent signals to Langley, Virginia.
5:30
But there we are, so where do where do we go? Just
5:34
tell us a bit more about what you got out of your time with the
5:41
Contrast, because that, from what I've read, was a key part in
5:46
your journey to getting closer to the intelligence infrastructure in the US. It was
5:53
one of those formative life experiences where you're a kid, so you don't really
5:57
know where it's going to go or even why you're doing some things. At
6:00
the time, I wanted to be involved in a mission oriented activity and given
6:05
the Army Reserve Officers Training Corps a bit of a try, and then decided
6:12
even before basic training that the Army wasn't doing anything. It was run by
6:15
a lot of depressed Vietnam veteran colonels, and I thought, I've got to
6:18
go and do something else. So this opportunity came up to go to Central
6:24
America with the Nicaraguan contrast. I had friends who had gone to Angola with
6:30
the forces of Jonas Savimbi and in the North with the forces of Holding Roberto.
6:35
I had met journalists and others who had been to Afghanistan with the Northern
6:40
Alliance, with the forces of Masud and others, and so I thought,
6:45
well, this is this is a chance for me to do the right thing
6:48
against the Soviets in my own way, because I spoke Spanish and you know,
6:57
be involved in mission oriented activity at the same time time. So it
7:00
was the beginning of a big lifetime vocation to oppose not just the Soviets but
7:09
their allies and later on the jihadists and the Chinese communists. I'm going to
7:14
use the word challenging. That must have been called a challenging thing to do
7:17
because you're The story you narrate is that you weren't even sure who you were
7:23
going to meet when you got out there, but you did remember the name
7:27
of a particular individual. This was my first trip down with the Contras in
7:33
Honduras, so you'd enter Nicaragua through Honduras. I was an illegal alien to
7:40
in two countries, one of them was Nicaragua. And yeah, in going
7:45
down, I just went and wasn't making any progress getting in because I was
7:50
this skinny American kid with you know, kind of longish hair, and I
7:54
looked like one of the Marxist fellow travelers who was going down to join some
7:58
revolutionary movement. Caused trouble, and so I pulled rank. Not getting any
8:03
cooperation at the border, and I asked the Honduran authorities for Capitan Luke or
8:09
Captain Luke, and they seemed kind of puzzled and went into another room,
8:13
and finally somebody came out and allowed my friend and I threw and then there
8:18
we met up with the Nicaraguin contrast, but it wasn't for another thirty years
8:22
that I realized that I was Capitin Luke and that kryptonym that had been given
8:28
to me in church back in nineteen eighty late eighty three, early eighty four
8:35
by CIA director Casey himself. I'd been told prior to my trip to go
8:43
to Saint Matthew's Cathedral to the five o'clock vigil Mass. And I'm a Catholic,
8:48
and I thought, well, this is a strange way to get me
8:50
back to church. Maybe maybe this is some you know, much more dangerous
8:58
run than I thought I was going to do down and said America. So
9:00
I went anyway, and Casey shuffled up right at the end of At the
9:05
end of Mass, I was told to stay still, don't move until somebody
9:09
approached me, and then his staff approached me, and then he did,
9:13
and he mumbled something at me, and I didn't understand what it was,
9:16
and then somebody else barked at me. Capten Luke. Remember that name.
9:18
It was a very commanding voice. So I remember the name, and it
9:22
was in church and Casey left, and I learned much later on that Casey
9:28
went and did this, and in church he went to mass almost every day
9:31
because he could never be forced to testify before Congress or a court. What
9:35
happened to Church no fascinating, an incredible start to a career. So you
9:43
get that experience with the contras, and then from my reading of your CV,
9:48
you slowly but surely get involved closer with intelligence organizations. But at particular
9:54
point you're obviously writing as well. Before we get into that, just a
10:00
little question because I had to look at your LinkedIn page and under your name
10:05
it says national security professional with quote unconventional views. So what would those views
10:15
be? Why? Is Well, you've presumably put that on your LinkedIn page,
10:20
but you're here with the background in the establishment. Where did the unconventional
10:24
views come from? Well, it's not so much philosophical views, which are
10:31
different from the mainstream, but it's more of a worldview. So I've never
10:39
fit into a bureaucracy and never really been part of one for very long,
10:43
and never in the federal government. And I was told early on that with
10:48
somebody with my temperament, my sense of being mission oriented and not fitting into
10:56
a routine or something that's regimented that in the words of one Senate staffer who
11:03
was on the Intelligence Committee. You will hate them and they will hate you,
11:09
And of course that's no way to go into public service. So I
11:11
chose a different route on my own as part of mainly privately funded or exclusively
11:18
privately funded networks to finish up the Cold War against the Soviet block. This
11:26
is a time when Reagan and Thatcher were ruling the Western world and had a
11:31
real mission, and I wanted to be part of that mission. So the
11:35
unconventional views came from not fitting in, not going by the typical processes,
11:39
and being content to be rotated through bureaucracies all my life, and in so
11:45
doing looking at things from sort of an insurgent standpoint. So in the US
11:50
we look at things as from a very large perspective, where you spend colossal
11:56
amounts of money and work many, many years and including an entire career on
12:01
a problem, often without really solving the problem, ameliorating it a bit,
12:07
but not really solving it. And we have, you know, insane amounts
12:11
of money to just throw at things. So my experience with the contrace and
12:16
with some small privately funded networks was that it's remarkable how much you can do
12:22
with very little money. If you're forced to think that way. So that
12:28
was my unconventional view, how to have low cost, high impact solutions to
12:31
some of our pressing problems. How did you get from that background into what
12:37
appears to be a specialist area of psychological warfare, if I've picked that up
12:43
correctly. This again came from that same time period. So the Soviets were
12:48
building up a massive nuclear weapons force, the US and the UK were trying
12:54
to catch up with modernizing their nuclear forces, and the Soviet sponsored a global
13:03
act of measures campaign, political warfare campaign, a psychological warfare campaign to prevent
13:09
the West from modernizing. And I was looking at that and seeing how effective
13:13
this was, certainly in delaying programs and even shutting some of them down.
13:18
That and I had gone infiltrated some of these groups to see what was what
13:26
was going on, who was behind them, who was with them, what
13:28
their themes were, what they were planning. So I get to see how
13:33
how cheap their operations were, yet how effective they were in tying the hands
13:39
of people like Reagan and Thatcher. And then the same thing with the contrast,
13:43
taking an insurgent perspective of this and then looking at the communist FM andl
13:48
and guerrillas and neighboring El Salvador, and how they were almost able to take
13:52
over the country based not so much on a military insurgency, but in a
13:58
political and psychological warfare campaign, a global one that I chose this as an
14:05
area of concentration. How can we in the West do this better so we
14:07
don't have to waste so much money on the military. You've got that understanding,
14:13
and you've got that philosophy. How did you manage to move across to
14:18
be teaching at pretty high level these sorts of topics. How did that start
14:24
for you? Well, again, it started out. Once you do something,
14:28
you find yourself in a situation. There's nobody managing you or directing you,
14:31
or often even guiding you, and you sort of become noticed or you
14:37
fall into things and opportunities arise. So in my case, there was a
14:41
dean of the College of Communication at Boston University called me up. He had
14:46
been a journalist before, and he said, hey, can you tell me
14:48
more about the El Salvador insurgency and how it works on the political side.
14:54
So I helped him. I gave him a lot of information to write something
14:56
on it, and then he said, do you have a graduate degree?
15:01
I said no. He said, would you like to come up here to
15:03
get a master's degree? All expenses paid? I said sure, just starting
15:07
out in life with a you know, I had just gotten married, and
15:11
so sure, I'll take a fully paid college degree master's degree. And from
15:16
that went it became a doctoral degree, and then from that it entered naturally
15:22
the teaching area. So there was a there was a graduate school being set
15:26
up for US national security affairs, but it also had the curious idea of
15:33
defensive Western traditional values and principles. And then I became a professor of international
15:41
communication at that school and was able to apply much of what I had learned
15:46
in practice as an academic discipline. When did the connection, for example,
15:52
with teaching in Montaray? When did the military tuition come into that time frame?
16:00
So that was after the September eleventh, two thousand and one attacks,
16:03
when we were faced with what was called the global War on Terror, and
16:10
there had to be some kind of a traveling group of instructors to go from
16:15
military base to military base, all the way from Virginia to Hawaii to train
16:26
senior non commissioned officers and junior officers in various areas of discipline prior to their
16:34
deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. So this was done
16:40
for the army, but through the Naval Postgraduate School. Interesting, fascinating a
16:47
book. You've written a book, big in tell and it's an extremely interesting
16:52
book. You were kind enough to send us electronic copy of this, which
16:56
I've spent quite a bit of time reading. I've got to be honest,
17:00
I haven't got through. I haven't got through every single chapter word for word,
17:06
but I have spent a lot of time on your book because I found
17:08
it so interesting. And a couple of names came up, which I'll just
17:14
throw at you now, because of course Marx is in there, and gram
17:17
skis in there, and Saul Olynsky appears. And when I was getting into
17:22
getting near those particular mentions, I suddenly thought, wow, this is really
17:27
interesting where this book is going. So the title is the Big Intel,
17:33
and the subtitle there is how the CIA and FBI went from Cold War heroes
17:40
to deep state villains, and a lot of detail in the book. You've
17:45
got a lot of information about particularly the FBI and the CIA. In America
17:51
and intelligent services in general. But through it is a historical theme which is
18:00
largely connected into various forms of communism and in particular communist subversive techniques. So
18:11
Yuri Besmanoff gets quite a big mention. Some people know ni As Thomas Schumann
18:17
and also gram Ski, who I've mentioned, and the Frankfurt School. So
18:23
I'm going to call him Mike if I made Mike. What got you to
18:27
the position where you thought, I've just got to write a book? First
18:32
of all, I didn't want to write the book. I was sick of
18:34
Washington, been there since nineteen eighty for the most part, with a few
18:38
breaks here and there, and I just wanted to be done with everything.
18:42
And finally some of those closest to me said, you can't just turn your
18:45
back. You have to you know, people need what you know. So
18:52
there was that part. And then the publisher Regnary, whose editor in chief
18:57
had been my roommate back when I was doing stuff in Central America with the
19:02
Contras and with the Salvadoran Army, he called me out of the blue and
19:07
said, you have to write a book on the CIA. He didn't know
19:10
my involvement. Nobody knew my involvement with the CIA back in the nineteen eighties,
19:15
So it was through that that I wrote the book. But it was
19:18
only supposed to be about the CIA under Obama, Trump and Biden, and
19:26
then it expanded to well the FBI because it's got such a greater effect on
19:30
the American public. But then also once you're trying to find the origins of
19:36
all this, it just didn't start with Obama. How did it begin?
19:38
What were the roots of that? So what were the ideological drivers and who
19:41
were the people behind it? So then that became big intel going back a
19:45
century. That's extremely interesting because the Boyd and Obamas is the latter section of
19:52
the book, isn't it. It's from my memory, I think is about
19:56
chapter twenty or woods. So that was the the captured you and then the
20:02
historical bit came later and you've put the thing together in that way. You
20:07
know, it's very very interesting. So I want to say that reading the
20:14
book, there's two distinct things going on. You're talking about the organization of
20:22
intelligence and well CIA intelligence and the FBI in America. You're also talking about
20:30
a strong thread of communism and communists subversive techniques. You're seeing those techniques impact
20:40
not only on American society, but you're seeing those techniques start to impact on
20:45
the very American institutions which are supposed to be protecting America from communists subversive techniques.
20:53
So there's a number of different threads which weave themselves together in the book.
21:00
But ultimately, I think the book is about a warning that something malevolent
21:06
is happening to UK to US society. Would that be correct? Yes,
21:14
to both of our societies. The parallels are really striking because the whole Frankfurt
21:21
school mentality that drove, incubated and created critical theory and then the critical theorists
21:30
and the whole idea that you take the whole concept of Marxism, you get
21:37
rid of the economic warfare side of it. So it's no longer the poor
21:41
masses of people against the wealthy elites, because right now so many of the
21:45
wealthy elites themselves are Marxists. So what do you what are you attacking?
21:51
So it's this constant search of an oppressor, a constant victim mentality, and
21:56
then a constant incessant attack on our civilization, the roots of our civilization,
22:04
our institutions, our forms of government, our respective forms of government, because
22:11
both are rooted in what are sort of white male, misogynistic racist oppression that
22:18
have to be overthrown. And along with being overthrown anything to do with Christian
22:22
religion, anything to do with family, nuclear family values, rule of law,
22:30
along the Anglo Saxon kind, all those things have to be destroyed in
22:37
the name, in the name of diversifying, in the name of creating a
22:42
more equitable and inclusive society. This is critical theory based on the cultural form
22:48
of Marx, which he wrote about even before he wrote the Communist Manifesto.
22:53
So people really don't understand it. But in the US and the UK,
22:59
our intelligence are suffering from those common origins where you had the services had been
23:07
penetrated deeply by the Soviets. But it was those very same Soviet agents Dickie
23:15
Ellis, Kim Philby and others who helped the United States set US officer strategic
23:21
Services during World War II, the precursor to the CIA, And so we
23:25
still suffer from this contamination today. A lot in there again, question I'd
23:30
like to it's your opinion on this, because if we are following the roots
23:37
of this poisoned back, we're going to quickly come back to Marx. And
23:42
so we're talking about when are we talking about eighteen eighty, eighteen eighty three,
23:52
eighteen forty eighteen forty three, and Marx was living in the web.
24:00
But the ideology being generated is we're going to say, a communist ideology,
24:07
and he is able to expand that ideology because support, because of support he
24:12
gets from the West. And then we see Marx helping to kick start off
24:21
revolution in Russia and the formation ultimately of the Soviet State. And the point
24:26
that I'm sort of circling around is that on one hand, we can sit
24:32
here in twenty twenty four and say the threat against us is the communist threat,
24:38
and that threat is aligned with Russia and China. Or we could say
24:44
the threat that we're facing is the communist threat and that has been created from
24:49
people and organizations within our own societies. Which one is correct or which one
24:57
would you what would you support? What's your view on it? Well,
25:03
Marx and Engels began as Europeans who elaborated on ideologies based in the extreme parts
25:12
of the French Revolution, and then certain philosophical schools of thought behind that.
25:18
So they didn't have state sponsorship for this. In fact, they were being
25:22
sponsored by the Engles family's capital in the British mills. So it's kind of
25:29
ironic that the ones who were denouncing the oppression of the workers were actually being
25:33
funded by the mill family that was supposedly oppressing workers. So they profited from
25:40
that to develop their philosophy. But the Soviets built on this, and they
25:45
realized right away the Bolsheviks that they couldn't replicate the Bolshevik Revolution of nineteen seventeen
25:52
in Europe and abroad because workers there had too much hope ahead of them.
25:57
They had possibility, so they were not going to have some kind of an
26:02
armed proletarian struggle. And that's when there was a meeting in nineteen twenty two
26:07
in Moscow where you had the leaders of the European communist parties and the head
26:12
of the Soviet apparatus to manage them, and the head of the Chechau which
26:15
became the KGB, and they decided then and there to develop an institution in
26:22
Germany that would tear apart societies culturally, put the societies at war with one
26:30
another. This was in Bimar, Germany, and the whole idea then after
26:34
Germany's unconditional surrender following World War One and the humiliation and the internal strife that
26:41
followed, this institute, which was based in Frankfort and got the nickname Frankfort
26:48
School, would exist to bring in the journalists and philosophers and cultural figures and
26:56
others to find a way to tear Germany apart inside so that then the Communists
27:03
could take over. Well, Hitler beat them to it, and so they
27:07
were pushed out, and they set up their Frankfort School replanted Frankfort School in
27:12
New York at Columbia University, but also in the UK at Tavistock Institute,
27:18
and then that's where they had their new schools of thought to elaborate on how
27:22
to tear apart the UK, in the British Empire at large, and all
27:26
of Anglo Saxon society at large, how to do the same thing in the
27:30
United States and elsewhere. Then it stopped being state sponsored though, and it
27:36
started being a real train of thought that the public and scholars and journalists and
27:41
others had internalized on their own. So he had a Soviet active measure that
27:45
then took on a sort of a zombie like existence of its own. In
27:48
your description there, we've got sort of two seeds, and we've got the
27:52
seeds at work inside the Western world itself. We've got the drive coming in
27:57
following the through and full of the Bolshevik Revolution, and the techniques that you're
28:03
talking about also coming back to the Frankfurt school. But probably would it be
28:11
fair to say the best description of these techniques has probably come from Uri Besmonov
28:18
in his description of these subversive techniques to be employed, as he said back
28:25
in the eighties by the KGB. He set those out pretty strongly, didn't
28:30
he He did, and he wasn't He wasn't regarded very well at the time
28:36
when he said it. He had a few people who the message resonated with
28:40
him, and there were a few recordings of interviews and lectures that he made
28:44
in around nineteen eighty three eighty four, but his warnings never really took hold,
28:49
and until people revived those videos and hosted them up on YouTube that Besmanov
28:55
got a very large following. So there's a whole chapter there on besmanov big
29:00
intel and what he said, and the reason I put it in there I
29:03
could have paraphrased them were simply quoted from him, but I went and transcribed
29:07
his interviews because someday YouTube is obviously going to take them down. I wanted
29:12
to have some written record which hadn't found elsewhere about what he really said and
29:18
warned about, and every single thing he warned about. True. Yes,
29:23
that's the powerful thing, isn't it. I came across this man through a
29:29
book which was called The EU Collective Enemy of its Member States, and it
29:34
was by a gentleman called Christopher's Story, who fortunately isn't live now. I
29:38
did meet him in London, but he gave me a copy of his book,
29:42
which was essentially on Soviet subversion of society. But in the first few
29:51
pages he included a table with the works of what he called from Thomas Schumann
30:00
Besmudov, but he used the name Thomas Schumann. And it set out in
30:04
a tabula form the areas of society and how they would be attacked and what
30:11
the result was. And we had everything there, from Christianity to education,
30:17
to social life, the trade unions, the military, and I read I
30:22
was reading that book I was at home. I particularly remember an afternoon of
30:27
sat in the armchair with a cup of tea looking through this table, and
30:33
then I found myself saying, this is happening, This is happening in UK.
30:40
And then as I got back into the table and read more, it
30:44
was like a strange realization that break down which I was watching in a number
30:51
of areas of UK society at that time. When am I talking about,
30:55
I'm going back to the early well it would have been the mid nineteen nineties
30:59
because i'd left the Navy at that stage. But the breakdown that I was
31:04
seeing in society strange changes, changes to language. I could see the description
31:12
in that table and that made a profound impact on me, and that's when
31:18
I started to go look to go looking for other people who were talking about
31:25
where this, where these techniques had come from, which of course starts to
31:29
pull you back towards the Frankfurt school. So I'd just echoed that back to
31:33
you, that the European Collective enemy of its member states, with a lot
31:37
of detail about the Soviet regime and the people and the techniques, was where
31:42
I first got interested in the subject. And that's why I say that when
31:47
I began to read your book, I was just so drawn into it because
31:51
you with a lot more experience than me in these fields were absolutely going back
31:56
into that man's very important work. Where would we be right if we didn't
32:01
have him giving those almost forgotten lectures from forty years ago, and then the
32:06
people who saw fit to post them for everybody to see now they're their real
32:13
value today is that we're not exploring unknown territory. Besmanov is giving us a
32:21
blueprint of what to look for in the different stages of attacks on society and
32:25
the different stages of societal decline, so that we're not going blindly through this
32:36
these internal crises that our respective countries are going through. And it's also helpful
32:39
to know that these types of things are planned. So Besmanov speaking to us
32:45
from forty years ago is letting us know that we're really on the mark when
32:51
we are seeing different hidden hands and different ideological tendencies, and a deliberation of
32:57
our societies from within, as opposed to simply changing social mores and new generations
33:04
of people coming up with different ideas. This is a real attack that we'rewithstanding.
33:08
The other thing that he pointed out was that these were long range plans,
33:14
and one of the weaknesses of Western society in particular was that people tended
33:19
to think in much shorter terms, so the Soviets were happy to be talking
33:24
about what they could achieve in twenty thirty, forty to fifty years, whereas
33:30
the West tended to look at short term plans, so they weren't looking at
33:34
this longer, slower creeping ideology that had been unleashed exactly, and even Besmanhov's
33:44
predecessors back at that nineteen twenty two meeting in Moscow, they knew, and
33:50
they even said to the effect that this is a strategy that will outlast our
33:52
own lifetimes and it will take many generations to continue. So then we're fifty
33:59
years later, forty forty fifty years later. When Besmonov was being trained as
34:02
a Soviet propaganda agent, he was also trained this will take generations to accomplish,
34:09
and now a generation or two later we're seeing it, you know,
34:15
in the state of collapse that it's in. Yes, and the basic table,
34:20
if I remember it correctly, it had twenty five years I think it
34:23
was of demoralization, followed by five years of destabilization. Then it was normalization,
34:34
I think, which was the final synthesis into well breakdown demoralization, destabilization,
34:43
breakdown and then normalization, which I believe was the synthesis into a communist
34:51
society established within the West. Right, yeah, right, and something like
34:57
it. Because people will often scoff today at the idea of communist society and
35:01
communist revolution and so forth. But if you look at the all the ideological
35:06
drivers come from Mars, and they come from Yuri Lukach and Frankfurt School and
35:13
the Tavistock books, and it all stems from the same origin. So it's
35:17
just a different kind of revolution that was envisioned by the same people who brought
35:22
us Bolshevism. Okay, so here's the first challenging question. You've got this
35:29
ideology which has been unleashed. You've seen it. You see it very clearly,
35:34
so clearly that you're able to write a really detailed book about what's been
35:37
happening. You've been working within the intelligence in and alongside the intelligence services inside
35:45
the United States, but apparently those people couldn't see what had been unleashed on
35:52
them. How do you explain that? That's a tough one, and those
35:58
who were warning about it were generally were not welcome even inside the intelligence services.
36:04
There were some terrible arguments and debates, which you should have. Any
36:07
good analytical team should have big debates and even bitter arguments in order to find
36:13
the answers to things. But people with these types of views even in the
36:17
eighties were viewed as anachronistic old cold warriors, you know, something out of
36:22
McCarthyism in the nineteen fifties. So their views weren't really welcome, and as
36:28
such you didn't have a very good analytical base or a data base on which
36:34
to learn what was happening to us. So fortunately, on the American side,
36:38
we had Ronald Reagan at a team of people who did understand it,
36:43
a CIA director Bill Casey who had served in the OSS who did understand it,
36:49
and some people around Reagan, some of whom had been former communists themselves,
36:53
had been trained by the communists, they'd been groomed by them, and
36:55
then they broke with them and for decades and their lives combating it. These
37:01
were the people who I learned under and so you did have a pushback then,
37:07
but you didn't have like even to this day, our intelligence services don't
37:13
have a sophisticated understanding of how other international ideological movements work, whether it's the
37:19
anarchists, whether it's certain jihadist movements, how they work and how they operate,
37:24
and how they will infiltrate and sort of hybridate when they need to function
37:32
within the law. So they're not viewed as criminals, they're not viewed as
37:37
subversives, they're not viewed as terrorists until such time as they come forward to
37:43
become just that. So understanding ideological warfare has not been a very good way
37:49
to enhance one's career in a bureaucracy, which is by again some of us
37:53
never fit in, right, Okay. And your description of the of the
38:00
impact of the ideological warfare is that it started clearly started to impact on people
38:07
within US intelligence services and new people who were pointed into the system. So
38:15
your book is indicating that you were able to observe, maybe with hindsight,
38:21
but you were able to observe people within the defense I'm going to call it
38:27
the defense and intelligence realm of the United States who had themselves been taken over
38:34
by this ideology. They'd been subverted themselves by the ideology imposed on wider American
38:43
society, right, and many of them didn't know it. They would become
38:50
justifiably indignant because they didn't understand what was happening to them, what their experiences
38:55
were that had influenced them. Just like at the time, I didn't know
38:59
a lot of what I was saying until many years later when I was able
39:01
to sit back and put it together. But if you're in any kind of
39:05
a bureaucracy, you're on deadlines, you have meetings, you have all sorts
39:09
of things happening where you know timeframes in which you must produce something, So
39:15
you don't have a chance to sit back and to muse about, Hey,
39:20
what's going on around us, what's happening around us? There's no time for
39:24
that. You have all of these other benchmarks that you must meet. So
39:29
on the one hand, it's difficult to have that perspective when you're in a
39:35
day to day bureaucracy. On the other hand, also it's not it doesn't
39:39
profit you to be a contrarian within a bureaucracy. That's not how you get
39:44
promoted or that's not how you get the types of work, the duties that
39:47
you need or that you want. And in fact, it's a good way
39:51
to get punished and to be set back, and either you're stationed to a
39:54
very difficult and unpleasant, unprestigious hardship post. Or you're simply put in a
40:00
place where you'll become bored to death and they hope you'll either remain harmless or
40:06
even leave government service. So this is one common thing now when you combine
40:10
that with an influx after nine to eleven of a very large number of new
40:17
analysts who to view the world a very different way. So they don't view
40:22
the world in the Western moral tradition anymore. They even view the world as
40:25
a bad place. So the United States was founded by evil men who set
40:31
up a constitutional order in their view, to make slavery something permanent and to
40:38
exploit everybody. So the duty then of these new people is to defend the
40:43
country in the world against the evils of this type of misogynistic, bigoted ideology.
40:50
And so when you have people who are sworn to uphold, in the
40:53
case of the United States, to uphold the American Constitution, who don't believe
40:58
in constitutional principles, and your country's really in trouble. And this is what
41:01
we're facing in the CIA and the FBI today. I really began to get
41:06
interested with what you started to talk about I've just got some notes here because
41:12
there's so much detail. Chapter twenty one use which was entitled Manufacturing Domestic Threats
41:22
the Bounty System, and you started to talk about the FBI under Bush,
41:27
Cheni and Muller, and you said it was becoming more centralized and more of
41:35
a military format. So there were changes to the FBI happening. And then
41:40
very quickly, the next person that emerges who you say made a step change
41:45
to things was a bomber. Can you tell us a little bit more about
41:51
what you actually saw with those key political people and what you thought they were
41:57
doing. The FBI was up so that the investigations were originated from the field
42:06
offices in different cities, so they're initiated on the ground at any of the
42:09
fifty six different field offices. They're not initiated from central headquarters. And this
42:15
is really important in our system because it's designed to prevent the central government from
42:21
taking power over the states and over the individuals and abusing that power. Even
42:25
under j. Edgar Hoover, who had, you know, plenty of issues
42:31
of his own over his very long tenure at the FBI, he never even
42:37
came near to committing the types of abuses that have been happening today. So
42:43
after nine lets, President George W. Bush turned to his brand new FBI
42:47
Director, Robert Muller, who had only been on the job for a week,
42:51
and he pointed at him and said, you will make sure this never
42:53
happens in our country again. So Muller, who had been a marine,
43:00
very distinguished attorney, said, fine, that's my orders from the President.
43:04
I'm going to do it. So he turned the FBI from an investigative and
43:07
law enforcement agency into a domestic intelligence service with police functions. And this in
43:15
our system is a very dangerous thing. So he created sixty new top level
43:22
management positions. He centralized the bureau from the top down instead of reversing it
43:27
from having been the bottom up, and he hired a whole lot of new
43:32
people who were very different from the ethos that the FBI had always had for
43:39
its entire existence. And then what Bush did then was he centralized the domestic
43:46
security organizations that had been dispersed throughout the bureaucracy, centered them under one gigantic
43:53
Department of Homeland Security. Then centralized the eighteen agency intelligence community, which had
44:00
been designed so that it would always be divided at the top and could never
44:02
act against the constitutional government, centralized that under the Office of the Director of
44:08
National Intelligence, and then created a whole series of laws that were pushed through
44:13
Congress, like the USA Patriot Act, that had very draconian powers, and
44:19
some were so draconian that they were designed to sunset after a few years.
44:22
They would expire so that they wouldn't become a threat. But instead Congress kept
44:27
renewing these laws. So you have all of these things together created a large
44:31
central apparatus with the force of law behind it, and it became a top
44:37
down security apparat So when somebody like Obama comes in's who said that he plans
44:45
to fundamentally transform the United States of America. Part of his fundamental transformation was
44:52
to seize control of this central security apparatus that we have and to politicize it
44:59
with the type of critical theory that has been tearing our society apart. Would
45:05
you say that what Obama clearly started to do to me, it's subversive,
45:10
But maybe that's a bit strong. Did he know what he was doing or
45:16
was he doing this because he was being advised from people around him were encouraging
45:22
him to go in a particular direction. Barack Obama's no fool. He's a
45:28
very bright person, but his entire life was formed by people with these views.
45:36
So one of his greatest influences from his when he was about nine years
45:39
old to when he went off to college was a man named Frank Marshall Davis,
45:45
who had been an old Stalinist, unrepentant, a Soviet tool all his
45:52
life. And he's the one who mentored this fatherless young Barry Obama in Hawaii.
45:58
So when Obama went to went from Hawaii to the continental US to go
46:01
to college, he identified with these radical groups, radical faculty, radical individuals,
46:12
hung out with them. They were his social circles. And he has
46:15
said before that he studied Marxism so that as a way of picking up girls,
46:20
but really he studied Marxism to master different theories and strategies and practices of
46:25
how to go about radicalizing society for the purpose of fundamental transformation of that society
46:34
and political power. So then by the time he got to Chicago and met
46:37
with his fiancee, Michelle Robinson, she was working for Valerie Jarrett, who
46:45
was a senior person in the Chicago City government. Part of the Chicago political
46:51
machine that had come out of the old Chicago Communist Party. So the two
46:55
Obamas. Then when Obama ultimately became president, Valerie Jarrett with them and they
47:00
still live in the same house today. So Jarrett was the real operational and
47:08
organizational mind behind Obama and his transformational agenda. There were a whole lot of
47:15
other of these drivers, to the point that when Obama was running for state
47:20
office in the state of Illinois, he was trained and mentored and curated by
47:24
a couple who had been part of the Weather Underground terrorist movement in the nineteen
47:29
sixties and seventies but had then gone quote legitimate by being professors, when in
47:35
reality they were just as extremist as they always were, they just weren't committing
47:38
crimes anymore. Obama connected with Chicago when Chicago known to be a base for
47:47
disruptive transformational organizations, right that was where the Communist Party was founded back in
47:55
nineteen nineteen, so they have very strong roots there. But the actual strain
48:00
within the Democratic Party because in the United States the Communist Party has never been
48:05
powerful at all. Its real influence has been not numerically for turning out votes,
48:10
but in infiltrating institutions, and so this is where these different individuals who
48:17
had devoted not just their own lives, but their parents had and sometimes their
48:21
grandparents had before them, come up through this party machine. Yeah. What
48:24
I started to find so interesting at this point because it was a barber.
48:30
You were also talking about Chicago in the book, and at the time I
48:36
was beginning to see things myself. I was particularly interested in a charity called
48:40
Common Purpose, which supposedly was created after the then chief executive had been to
48:49
Chicago. They come back to England, they suddenly can raise half a million
48:54
pounds and create a charity which to my mind, became very political political instantly.
49:01
It was called Common Purpose. Maybe that's a bit close to Common Course,
49:07
which was operating in the States, But I began to look at that
49:10
charity, and I also began to watch what was happening politically and just pop
49:17
a couple of slides on screen just to see what your reaction is to this.
49:22
But Obama was there a little bit earlier. We'd had changes to left
49:27
wing politics in UK, so we'd had the Milliban brothers, Ed and David,
49:32
and what was interesting about them was that their father had been interested in
49:37
marx and Marxist policy, but they were being put forward to be the new
49:45
labor leaders, or one of them was going to be the new Labor leader.
49:49
And at the same time we had Tony Blair emerging and he was talking
49:54
about a new form of left wing politics, and that was some think that
50:00
I came across in your book at one particular point where you talked about a
50:04
change between sort of old left and new left, and immediately Tony Blair came
50:09
into my mind. I'm just going to add a couple of little bits on
50:15
this slide because we had in Tony Blair's time the Deputy Prime Minister Prescott,
50:22
who was working with this very strange political charity Common Purpose from the office of
50:29
the Deputy Prime Minister. But Prescott's own background was clearly linked to the communist
50:38
viewpoint. That was a picture of him punching a member of the public in
50:43
the face, so he wasn't messing around. And then later on he basically
50:47
lost all credibility when he'd been entertaining a lady actually in Westminster, so he
50:53
was thrown out of politics. But we also put this label on this particular
51:00
slide back in twenty fifteen, the men destroying Britain in a chaos of wars,
51:07
economic destruction, poverty, and quote A Lynsky revolutionary change. But we
51:15
were watching a background of a Lynsky, who you mentioned in your book being
51:20
directly linked in with both the Labor Party in Britain and the Conservative Party.
51:27
So what essentially in your book you're describing as as this revolutionary change within America,
51:35
we were also experiencing people who could see were experiencing and seeing a similar
51:40
revolutionary change in the UK happening at exactly the same time. And I feel
51:47
that's unlikely to be a coincidence. No, not at all. It's like
51:52
the phenomenon now we have of wokeness and the and the real cultural self destructions
52:00
that's happening in both of our countries at the same time, but it's also
52:04
happening in our own intelligence services at the same time. So the story I
52:09
wrote about the Intel and the f behind the CIA, you could just as
52:15
easily write about MI I five and six. Actually, my publisher cut out
52:20
my six chapter chapter because he thought it would not be interesting to American audiences.
52:24
But there you have an especially militant leadership and you can see clearly that
52:29
it's been run from the top down and not driven from the bottom up.
52:32
But the rest of the Five Eyes, the Canadians and New Zealand, Australia,
52:37
all those services are going through the same cultural transformation at the very same
52:44
time that's highly at odds with the you know, with their populations. So,
52:50
Mike, it gets fascinating now, doesn't it. Because we discussed a
52:54
few minutes ago the fact that people inside the American intelligence services didn't appear to
53:04
see this attack coming on them, and you gave lots of good reasons as
53:07
to why they didn't. They didn't tied up with their job, just working
53:13
in one particular area, whatever it is. But now we've got the interesting
53:17
position that we've got the intelligence services in other Western countries who not only have
53:25
not only picked they've not picked up on this attack on them, they are
53:30
themselves being subverted by it. So we go from the US to UK,
53:37
to Canada wherever we want to go after that, and still we don't have
53:43
any centralized intelligence service standing up and warning that clearly there's this revolutionary attack happening
53:52
within society. That is a truly incredible compromise, A coincidence, We've got
54:00
something which is much bigger than just America at work. Very much. The
54:06
Israeli secret services and their whole security apparatus are the same way as well,
54:09
very woke or very culturally revolutionary, and I think someday in hindsight, people
54:17
are going to look back and see that they a lot of their wishful thinking
54:22
that was through an ideological lens and not through a professional intelligence lens, might
54:29
have led to the ability of Iran and Hamas and others to attack it the
54:35
way they have been. This is one of the real dangers of the extreme
54:40
nature of these ideological changes. It's not simply well, society has different views
54:45
now at different values now, or at least elements of those societies do,
54:50
but they're so militant about this and so intolerant about other views that it affects
54:57
that infects the whole idea of the collection and analysis of intelligence in an objective
55:05
way to be able to inform national leadership to make decisions that are in each
55:12
country's national interests. So if you throw out the rules of objectivity, or
55:16
you throw out the rules of solid analysis and the competition of different points of
55:21
view to try to arrive at at proper conclusions. Then you're destroying the entire
55:27
value of having an intelligence service in the first place, and you're seeing it
55:30
become weaponized now against your own societies or our own societies. Similarly, in
55:37
law enforcement with the FBI, if you take the rules of evidence and now
55:42
it's not evidence based on fact, based on ideology, and you choose to
55:47
disregard evidence for ideological reasons, or you invent evidence for ideological reasons, then
55:53
you're destroying the whole idea of law enforcement and due process and then jurisprudence.
56:00
The things that you mentioned in your book is part of the strategy is changes
56:05
in language, to change language words that are used, because this change changes
56:10
the way that people can or cannot form ideas themselves. So language and use
56:17
of language is very much under an attack as well, very much so,
56:22
and especially the English language because it's made up of so many other languages and
56:25
has always so readily adapted other languages and other ideas. So you get others,
56:34
say, more Latin based languages where they it's much harder because now you
56:37
have gendered words that don't fit the pronoun ideology that we're facing now, and
56:45
so you you know, it's harder to penetrate those other groups, but especially
56:50
in English, in the English speaking countries, you have a corruption much which
56:57
means we were not It's not just new words coming up to describe new situations.
57:01
It's the enforcement of new words to enforce an ideology. So, for
57:07
example, in the FBI right now, if you miss pronoun somebody as an
57:12
FBI employee, you have three chances. On your third chance, it's considered
57:17
a mark against you. And so going along with the revised pronouns, going
57:22
along with not just simply being a good colleague and being a tolerant colleague and
57:28
just saying, okay, well that's your choice to be the way you identify
57:30
yourself, but I'm just going to be a professional, just try to do
57:35
my job. That's not enough in the FBI anymore. You have to be
57:38
an advocate or what they call an ally to affirm this gender ideology, and
57:45
if you do not, that's counted against you as part of your personnel record,
57:50
and then your career is going to suffer. So this is sort of
57:53
ideological warfare that's literally being waged through changing our entire language down to the grammar.
58:02
I want to put this one back on screen just because I think it's
58:06
a lovely point. This was again another headline that we had in twenty fifteen
58:12
David Milliban Labor follows Barack Obama's lead on community organization, and then at the
58:20
bottom it says the philosophy of political action, theorized by the American activist Saul
58:24
Olinsky in the nineteen thirties and made more famous by Obama, seeks to organize
58:30
individuals into groups to better help them change their communities. It's aimed at politicians
58:37
of all stripes as established parties struggle to retain members. So there was a
58:44
deep warning in that little statement that even the framework of politics in UK was
58:50
being broken down itself, and left or right was still talked about, but
58:55
did they really mean anything because there was this new politics coming through with links
59:01
back to Saul Olinsky. And if that was the Labor side, we'd also
59:07
commented on the Conservative side and this was headlined by Cameron Clegg, Saulolinsky and
59:14
Paulo Frere and it says that basically the coalition government is going to use community
59:21
organizers to play an important role in delivering what they call the Big Society by
59:27
building community spirit. And when we looked at details of the big society,
59:32
to me and I think other probably people who were ex military, it did
59:38
seem to have a big communist component to it. So that was twenty fifteen.
59:45
We're talking about Obama, we're talking about Saul Olinsky, and we're warning
59:50
about deep changes to the political system, sort of making a synthesis of politics
59:58
and the community as if it was one unit. And I presume that was
1:00:02
because it meant that people people were more easy to control in that format.
1:00:09
If you can organize people at the local level, you're doing it among people
1:00:14
who know each other. They know where everybody lives. They may belong to
1:00:17
the same socioeconomic groups, but they're not organized because they're just living their lives.
1:00:24
So if you come in as a community organizer, you're doing what Mark's
1:00:30
called raising their consciousness of of their oppression and that everything around them oppresses them
1:00:37
and they have to band together to fight their oppression and demand what's theirs.
1:00:43
So this is this community organizing can sound very nice, but when you see
1:00:47
the types of organizing that's being done and how people are mobilized, it's no
1:00:52
surprise to see large numbers of radicalized people pour out into this and start demanding
1:01:00
the overthrow of your system or your country. We just noticed this in the
1:01:07
in the past days with the April fifteenth movement to shut downwards across the US
1:01:15
and around the world in thirty countries, and it's you know, ordinary people
1:01:19
don't do this, but if they've been organized to it, they will do
1:01:22
it. And most of them are not doing it in solidarity with Hamas terrorists
1:01:28
or the Iranian regime. They're doing it because of what they see as the
1:01:30
oppression of innocent people on the part of the Israelis. But the organizers know
1:01:37
exactly what they're doing, they just don't tell the people who are being organized
1:01:42
what they're doing. I'm afraid we've got to let you go. You've got
1:01:45
other engagements. I want to say straight away, we're only about halfway through
1:01:52
the subject of your book, and your subject there was the whole subject of
1:01:58
Hunter Boyden, then laptops and Biden himself and all of those serious issues within
1:02:06
the FBI and the intelligence services in the US. Do you think you might
1:02:09
manage to come back for a part two with us? Certainly it would be
1:02:15
really wonderful Okay, well, thank you very much for joining us. We're
1:02:19
going to leave that hanging in the air for our audience, but we must
1:02:22
have given them a lot to think about, and in a part two I'd
1:02:28
really like to explore with you not only the detail in your book, but
1:02:31
also that if we've got this attack happening not only on the US but countries
1:02:38
in the Western hemisphere in particular, maybe I could say worldwide, we should
1:02:44
be able to get to the interesting point of saying, if the enemies amongst
1:02:47
us, how do we deal with it? But perhaps we could we could
1:02:52
have a look at that in part two. There's a lot there. Look
1:02:57
forward to it. Okay, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you