Welcome to UK column viewers and listeners.
Really good to have you back. This is Part 2 of my interview
with J Michael Waller, who is the author of Big Intel, How the
CIA and FBI Went From Cold War Heroes to Deep State Villains.
And I'm going to say to our audience that this is really
fascinating book. It's kept me occupied for
several weeks and produced a really interesting discussion
with Mike in part one. But can I say if you're joining
us today and you haven't seen part one, my suggestion is that
you go on to the UK Common website and watch part one first
because it gives the introduction to Mike and his his
not only his work on the book, but also his personal history
connected with the intelligence services and psychological
warfare. And then it leads in through to
the start of his analysis of what's been happening in the US,
not only in politics and society, but deep inside the US
intelligence system. So see that part one first and
then come back to Part 2 if you've already seen it.
And you're with us ready to go for the next episode.
Thank you very much. And I don't think you'll be
disappointed. Mike, thank you very much for
joining me again. It's great to be back with you.
We ended having covered a lot of ground, which I'm just going to
try and summarise in in a couple of words, which is that you had
taken us through things that you were seeing happening not only
in U in US society, but particularly amongst the very
agencies that people would expect to be protecting US
society, the CIA and the FBI. And essentially this brought us
down to you crap me if if I haven't got this right, but this
brought us down to what you saw as a psychological attack on the
United States itself. Yeah, it's it's a psychological
attack on all of us, on all Western societies.
And because the the adversaries that created this who are long
gone, the program still survives living on its own, but the
adversaries themselves are gone. They couldn't, could not bring
us down through a violent Bolshevik type revolution
because people in Western societies had too much hope and
too much upside for working within the system.
So instead the the strategy was to destroy the system from
within and persuade the citizens of all our countries to destroy
our own system from within by attacking our heritage and our
culture and all our all the beliefs that we've had for
centuries. I think that we got to about
chapter 27 in your book in part one and 28.
I'll, I'll just give you this because I'm, I'm sure it'd be
useful to have a little bit of a prompter.
Chapter 28 was main sources of the allegations, foreign spies
and you gave a mention to Christopher Steele and the
Hunter Biden laptop. And I was particularly keen if
you'll tell us a little bit about that.
And then you go on from there. You're talking about Antifa,
just an idea, Trump, Team Biden, You're talking about five former
CIA directors, the incident at the Capitol defending against
communist Chinese spies. And then you get into the
positive stuff, which is rebuilding US, sorry, rebuilding
American intelligence. And that leads through to
Chapter 37, which is what to do with the FBI.
And then you've got a conclusion which I think is can be
summarised by big Intel is bad Intel.
But if you will take us into that second-half of the book and
in particular what you were seeing when you started to talk
about foreign spies and the likes of Mr. Steele and the
Hunter Biden laptop, because I know this will be of great
interest to AUK audience in particular.
Christopher Steele was the main source of allegations that
Donald Trump was somehow a Russian tool or Russian
government asset who was sort of our Manchurian candidate in the
United States to take over the United States on Russia's
behalf. This was found to be a lie in
two federal investigations, 1 by former FBI Director Robert
Mueller and another one by a special prosecutor, Durham.
And there was there was no basis in fact to Christopher Steele's
allegations. The the now Christopher Steele
was an MI 6 officer and professionally, but prior to
being in six, he had been part of a campaign to unilaterally
disarm NATO. He was with the British Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament as an activist at the time when the
CND was being used by the Kremlin as part of a Soviet
active measures campaign to destroy NATO and to destroy the
British and American nuclear deterrence.
So this is the type of person who was behind these
allegations. Wow.
I did. I did not.
I did not know that. I didn't know if his connections
with nuclear disarmament. That's extremely interesting.
Yeah. And well, I think the other
comment I'd make on this. So it's not unusual that we find
British intelligence agents meddling inside US politics.
We seem to have always had a finger inside the pie.
That's how I see it. I don't know how you would view
that. Well, George Washington had a
problem with that too. So it goes back a very long way,
but under very different circumstances.
And since our countries have been such strong, the it's been
in the British interests, not necessarily the American
interest. But if we consider each country
has its own national interests and sometimes those interests
won't won't be the same. And so it's been in in British
interests to get involved in American politics from time to
time, just as the United States gets involved in other countries
politics from time to time. But it's a very different issue
when former British intelligence officers meddle in American
politics with falsehoods to disrupt and polarize our system.
That's a hostile act, not by the British government because this,
in this particular case, the individual was acting, we hope,
as a private citizen. But but nevertheless, it's, it's
a divisive, an extremely divisive action by really what
amounts to a hostile foreign actor as an individual hostile
being. Just because he is a British
citizen and is is, is a citizen of our closest ally does not
mean that he himself is doing work beneficial to us.
Now parallel with Christopher Steele's false allegations were
allegations by a Russian asset that the FBI had.
He was a Russian citizen who the FBI believed at the time was
still working for the Russian security services.
So you have you have Steele and this Russian individual both
providing the the raw information to create these
allegations that the FBI then leaked to the press that a top
presidential candidate with half the country's support was a
Russian asset. And I, I have to ask this
question because in part one, you, you expressed some you want
in your book, you're expressing concerns about how the FBI is
behaving at the step at the time that the FBI stepped forward
with these allegations. Could.
Could, could you, as American citizen, trust what the FBI was
actually doing in relation to the case as a whole?
No, this is this is part of the breakdown of public confidence
in the FBI if if there had been problems for a long time.
But you can always forgive a human institution for making
mistakes if those mistakes were corrected.
But in this case, the FBI was adamant that that that Trump was
a Russian asset, that the that and and in so doing, through
falsehoods, it undermined public confidence in the ability of our
own government to detect and combat Russian disinformation
and Russian covert operations. If the FBI was spreading lies
about these things, who do you trust anymore?
So we as a public didn't have an institution that we could trust
to protect us against hostile Russian foreign subversive
political attack. And that's a key point, isn't
it? Society starts to become
confused as to as to where the truth is, who they can, who they
can trust. So we, we have a lot of
information certainly being thrown at us here in UK at the
moment that it's only social media that's pushing out
misinformation and disinformation.
But when when government assets are doing that, people in the
population are becoming really disorientated and confused.
Right. And then it even gets more
complicated because we, we as a, as a public, we trust the
British, you know, implicitly. And but when a former
intelligence officer from the British Secret Service is doing
this and there's no public pushback from the British Secret
Service saying he doesn't speak for us.
And indeed there are. There are.
We know for a fact the FBI was using some of the Five Eyes to
spy on American citizens to help the FBI circumvent domestic laws
against spying against their own citizens.
That undermines public confidence in our closest ally.
You've said something which I, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised
at, but but actually I'm, I'm quite shocked.
And that is that there's inherent trust when it's the
British doing things. Because I'm here living in this
country in the last 20X years of my life has been me coming to
the realisation that I can't trust a thing my government says
almost. So that's quite a statement that
that trust is so, so strong in the US for what may come out of
the mouths of British intelligence assets.
We've been well indoctrinated through a lot of Fleming books
and movies and other things that glorify that the the British
Secret Service, but we also have a genuine affection for sort of
everything that's that's indigenous to the UK and and you
know, and have since at least World War Two, if not many of us
4. And so when, when this type of
of confidence, it not just say not not just the British Secret
Service, but in the UK in general, when that deteriorates,
I mean, where are we both as countries, we need each other.
Yes, yeah, that's fascinating. OK, so let's let's leave that
one for a moment. Take us on to the Hunter Biden
laptop because certainly there has been an an awful lot said
and printed on media and, well, mainstream media and social
media about the whole of the Biden affair.
So it it, it appeared to be a really big ugly bubble where it
was everywhere. And now it seems to have just
almost disappeared. So tell us what you saw about
the episode and where you think it is now.
It was interesting to have an insider's view of that episode
because I had access to the contents of part of the contents
of the Hunter Biden laptop before it became public.
So I vetted a lot of the emails and other communications
concerning Russia and, and Central Asia and some from
Ukraine. So we so we knew in advance, we
knew the original source. So we had the whole provenance
and the whole chain of custody of the information.
So we knew that it was legitimate.
And so there was a good sized team of us going through these
materials to evaluate them well before the laptops contents were
released to the public. So when the when those contents
were released and then immediately came back the
allegation that this was Russian disinformation, we knew that
something was wrong. And this is the, this is the
crux of it. So I'll, I'll say the words.
But what we had what appears to be criminal activity going on by
somebody with connections to the highest political levels in the
states. And when, when that activity
started to be exposed, then in step the state in order to say,
well, actually this is just disinformation, ignore it,
right? Right.
And it was timed, of course, the release of the laptop was timed
and it was October of of 2020 right before our elections.
But the denunciation of it was, was, is was very interesting
because political activists who were supporting Joe Biden came
out and, and they organized. These were intelligence
professionals who became political activists, came out
and they had 51 former senior intelligence officials, five
former CIA directors, a whole lot of different operatives and
analysts and and officers, and then a lot in the military field
and other industrial and other intelligence organizations to
come up. 51 of them apply their names to a letter with the false
headline that this was Russian disinformation.
The letter said it had all the hallmarks of Russian
disinformation. And then the usual caveats that
they can't tell one way or another.
But the group wanted their headline that it was Russian
disinformation because this was three days before the Biden
Trump presidential debate when Biden was able to say this
laptop stuff that's coming out from the Trump camp is a lie.
Here we have 51 former senior intelligence people saying that
it's Russian disinformation. So that itself was a political
operation by intelligence people designed to disrupt our
political process. Yeah.
And of course, this is unbelievably serious because
you, you have you have your own intelligence services fully
disrupting the democratic process inside the states.
Right, right. And they're unaccountable.
Now, all these 51, as with Christopher Steele in his case,
these were all former officials. But in the intelligence world,
you never know. Are they still former.
And, and so many of them are, so many of them are, are active and
they maintain active security clearances.
So they're still part of the intelligence community, but when
you have former CIA directors and former senior CIA officials
throughout American intelligence tradition, which which only
extends for World War Two, they they're, they're considered to
to continue to speak as well connected intelligence
professionals for the intelligence community.
So what they say has a high degree of currency and and it is
it is logical and and expected that their views imply the views
of the intelligence community. If we take your analysis to it's
to to the end point, what it's saying is that within America at
the moment are forces which are absolutely working to working
counter to the democratic system.
In in America, you you're absolutely under attack.
Not by an outside agency. You're under attack by by
effectively, your own people. Right.
And they're unaccountable. There's no oversight there.
It's so, so this is, this goes completely outside of our
constitution. There is no check and balance
and no public accountability for it.
So you have you have a state within a state that's developed.
A state within a state, yes, absolutely.
OK, and this one pops into my head, but Hunter Biden laptop,
can I ask anything about the Hillary Clinton emails?
Because that was another one where a large amount of data was
circulating, but the public, the American public at least, never
seemed to get the absolute truth about what was hidden in those
emails. Right.
And we still don't have answers to those questions, you know,
many, many, many years after the fact.
That was a different case where Hillary Clinton as a as a state
was circumventing the law or to breaking the law because all
communications between government officials on
government business have to be done through government servers
and archive with the National Archives.
In Hillary Clinton's case, she had a private server installed
in the bathroom of her house to circumvent all of that, so there
would be no archival record of the things she was working on as
Secretary of State. So not only was that a major
violation of the law, but then you had classified information,
which is understood to have been put on those servers of a highly
sensitive nature that was open to compromise because it didn't
have any of the security features that a Secretary of
State of the United States would need.
So again, this is, this is another massive breakdown of
well, it's part of its breakdown to democracy, but it's, it's
bait, it's a breakdown also of the investigatory powers, isn't
it? Because if these, if these,
we'll call them allegations are, are not investigated properly,
then do you, do you have any form of, can you have any form
of confidence in the, in the security services, be it the CIA
or the FBI? No, I mean, imagine you've got
your we just have our own domestic American interests
here, but you also have international issues.
Imagine being a a foreign leader in contact with the American
Secretary of State and you have no confidence that those
communications will be secure. You have no knowledge that those
communications are being run through a server in her bathroom
with with no integrity to the to the security of this.
So anybody can can pick up the the secrets that are being
discussed. Yeah.
And, and I'd like, I'd like to say this because if we've got
people in the American audience, I, I'm here as the Brit asking
some pretty tough questions about how America is conducting
itself. And I'll say that as I'm asking
these questions, a few years ago we were looking at a situation
where there had been clearly been the abuse of children at
high political levels in in Britain.
And it was our own intelligence services, MI Five, that were
working to keep everything quiet in order to protect the
political leaders. This, this, this isn't hearsay.
This was reported quite openly by, you know, many credible
mainstream media sources. So we've seen the same problem
here with the intelligence services that you would have
thought would have been digging this stuff out to make sure the
people running the country were above board, honest and
certainly not criminal. The intelligence services were
working to protect those sorts of people.
So it it it it's happened here as well.
Sure. Then imagine now hostile foreign
actors, say the Russians or the Chinese or others who might also
be using this. So if the, if the internal
Security Service is keeping it secret and the, the, these are
the types of activity, you know, it's easy to blackmail and
compromise anybody who is abusing children.
Imagine what the Russians and the Chinese could have and the
leverage they would have over those politicians and officials
because it's all being kept secret.
If it's brought out to the light, then then there's someone
can't be blackmailed for it. I mean they can be have their
careers destroyed, but at least they cannot be blackmailed to
the detriment of the country. So what what the what the
counterintelligence or security services were doing there seems
to be helping cover up for these crimes and also assisting,
inadvertently we hope, foreign actors who would be exploiting
these these embarrassing and criminal secrets.
Yes. And this this also takes me back
to basic what I know as military vetting where the security
services look into the background of military personnel
to determine what level secrets they're going to have access to
and all they trustworthy people. So if you I know the same system
goes on in America that if you're going to have access to
classified material, you're going to get some form of
personal, professional, professional vetting to make
sure that you're you're safe. But as we've seen increasingly
liberal policies coming through government.
So a lot of of that has sort of disappeared into the long grass.
What I'm what am I getting at that if we go back 50 years ago,
probably if somebody had an affair and they were in a high
political position, this, this could be a big problem.
But we've now got to the situation here in UK at least,
where we can have politicians who can not only be having
affairs, they can be taking drugs on camera and organising
for drugs on camera. And yet they seem to survive
this. It's as though that's
acceptable. So what's the next level?
Well, probably we're going to go to some form of really serious
issue. Child abuse is one of them,
where that is the last domain. You can take drugs, you can have
multiple sexual partners, you can you can be doing all sorts
of things. That's now acceptable.
So you've got very little left before anything goes and once
that's acceptable, you have no, no control over morality or
honesty or democracy itself. So they the liberalisation is
part of the problem, which I think I'm correct in saying is
partly what you're warning about because this is the changing of
the mindset of the nation. You know, every society has its
own moral standards and those standards can change over time.
Some standards are eternal, some some are, are rather fluid.
But the whole object of the the the the campaign, the critical
theory campaign being waged against all Western countries is
to destroy the morals and destroy the the, the ethical
character of nations, to tear them down.
Once you accept paedophilia as a norm to be protected by the
authorities, you've lost your society.
Yeah, and that that is the statement and I believe that's
the situation that we're seeing in UK, but that will will say
will save that one. So probably the next thing to
move to after Hunter Biden is to Trump, because one, one of the
chapters you were talking about Trump and the the apparatus, if
I got that correct, and you were saying that he saw things, but
he didn't actually have a plan to counter what he saw.
Can you tell us a bit more about what you were seeing in relation
to that? Yeah.
Well, first, Donald Trump didn't really think he would win in
2016. He didn't think he would beat
Hillary Clinton, so he didn't have a plan to take office.
And, and then even if he did anticipate taking office, he
thought you could run America like you'd run a business.
You just put the right people in on top and then they would
follow orders from the CEO. That's not how it works.
He learned that the hard way. So he didn't come in with the
strategy. He didn't come in with a plan
because he didn't have a strategy to guide the plan.
He didn't have the team to put in place.
It was a very eclectic last minute type of team.
A lot of it was very inexperienced and and there was
a lot of acrimony with him. So he came in with none of the
of the planning assets that an incoming president would require
to govern the way he had campaigned he would govern.
Apart from that he had then no executive orders.
So as a when a president comes into office, any president, he
issues executive orders that are dictates to tell the bureaucracy
how he wants things to run or how he wants them not to run.
He didn't come in with a with a library of executive orders
ready to implement on day one. Bill Clinton did, Ronald Reagan
did before him, Barack Obama did and Joe Biden did.
But Donald Trump did not. So he came in with no assets.
So he was hamstrung from day one.
And this allowed the the entrenched apparat, the
intelligence apparat, the what some call the deep state to
survive unmolested. So Trump never tried to bring
the FBI to heel. He just changed the leaders and
put in a took one leader out and put a weak leader in.
But the the central nervous system of the FBI, which has
become radicalized, is able to run that leader as its own.
The same with the FBI. When he put in Gina Haspel as
CIA, as Spartan the CIA, when he put in Gina Haspel as CIA
director, he allowed the CIA to run itself.
Yeah. So to his credit, he never tried
to politicize it. But to to his, you know, I
think, I think he's learned a lesson now.
He never tried to to prevent the the abuses that were being taken
place, to prevent them from happening, and then to hold
those abusers accountable. This is a very important part of
this thing for discussion because when we look at any
Western democracy and you start to ask within that democracy who
holds the power? And we'd like to say, well the
voters do. Because if the voters are
unhappy with what's going on, they can vote in their new
democratically elected representative and that makes
the change through the system. But it isn't quite as simple as
that because most of the Western States, and if if I focus on UK,
they've got an inherent machinery of government which
runs itself, we would call it the civil service.
These are the publicly recruited and paid officials that work in
the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Health, whatever
it is. And around them is an immensely
strong policy heading in whatever direction it's headed,
heading in. And even if you get a new member
of parliament that is elected who says, well, actually what
we're doing is wrong, they've got to try and change this,
change direction for a a very big beast.
It's like a super tanker. It's going to take time to turn
it. And I think that's what you're
getting at with the system. But over and above the civil
service, we've got very powerful advisers who who the
intelligence services must form the backbone of that because
they come in with information always as if it is factual,
because they've been very clever in determining what this
information is. And it's then presented to
political leaders and even the president or the Prime Minister
here in UK as factual. And how does the political
representative or the OR the Prime Minister or the president
challenge information which has come from the intelligence
system? How do they do that?
It's really difficult and this was why it's so important for
leaders as well as the public to be able to trust their
intelligence services, because it's not as if you, you say,
prove it to an Intelligence Report.
It can't be proven because the sources and the methods of the
information are secret in order to protect, to protect those
sources and to protect those methods from our adversaries.
So you have to accept the the material at face value, but when
it becomes politicized or when there's a, when there's a
concern that it's become politicized and weaponized as we
call it, you can't trust it at all.
Yeah, it defends the whole. Purpose of having an
intelligence server. Yeah, Mike, in making that
statement, you're talking when you say politicized, you're
saying it's being politicized within the intelligence services
itself before it's being given to the politicians.
Yes, yes, it, it's, it because the world view is, has has
become so skewed. I mean, if you, if you consider
what's CIA now where you have, you're supposed to collect
intelligence based on a tasking, to collect intelligence of
certain natures from certain place or whatever.
That intelligence, that information is then analyzed.
It's vetted for its validity. It's then analyzed by different
groups of analysts, all professionals who who hopefully
will have different perspectives and different points of view in
order to, to validate and invalidate what's coming in.
And then they process that into what's called an intelligence
product, an analytical product that's then provided to the
president or his designees for the purpose of making sound
decisions. If you don't have that, if you
have intelligence that is now so skewed because of an ideological
transformation of the intelligence professionals
themselves, this or the critical merely embrace of critical
theory, The the view that America is, is a, is an evil
country founded by evil men for the purposes of, of, of building
and maintaining a white racial supremacist system and
oppressing the rest of the world.
If you're believing that as an intelligence analyst and you're
letting that color your analysis of intelligence, you're
basically doing the enemy's work for him.
Yeah. And you're you're misinforming
and then deliberately disinforming the president and
his designees in this. And then the entire integrity of
the intelligence community is destroyed.
The same thing goes with the FBI and domestic security, but also
the rules of evidence, because the FBI is a domestic
intelligence service with police powers.
So it has both the rules of intelligence, but also the rules
of evidence that you would enter in court.
And if the FBI is going ahead with a, an entirely skewed view
of the nation and a skewed view of our constitutional system,
and even a a no longer believing in our constitutional founding
principles, it is going to take its, its, its, its powers and
authorities and abuse them to make the evidence fit the crime
they want to convict you of, as opposed to simply letting the
facts speak for themselves. Yeah.
And as a foreigner, as an outsider, I watched with
interest some of the congressional interrogations of
the of senior people in the FBI when they were being asked
questions about Hillary Clinton and and Hunter Biden laptop.
And of course, when a question was asked, which was the key
penetrating question, invariably they would come out with a
comment like, oh, well, we can't answer that question in this in
this venue. We, we can't, you know.
So whether a private response clear of the public was ever
provided or not, I don't know. But you could see constant
deflections when questions were coming in from senators that
were clearly hitting the spot. Yeah.
And it's not like the FBI witnesses don't know they're
going to get these questions because the the terms of the
hearings are discussed in advance and the witnesses are
told please be prepared to address these types of
questions. And the FBI can always say,
look, this is sensitive information, we can tell you in
a classified session. So both the House and the Senate
have secure rooms called skips for the purpose of discussing
highly classified information and not having any eavesdroppers
being involved. Those skips are used all the
time. But you've never once heard the
FBI director say, let's address this in closed session in a
skip. OK, so Trump was there.
He hadn't prepared properly, so he ends up being a president
being driven by the power system around him, if that's a
reasonable summary. And presumably that power system
had its own political agenda in that they didn't want Trump.
And So what did they decide? That they could just about
tolerate him until he was not there.
They didn't need to remove him. I'll choose my words carefully,
in a permanent way. They could simply wait for him
to atrophy, to him to him to fade away.
Right. And this is a game that
bureaucrats play anyway. If they, you know, they're
looking at their career is they essentially can't be fired from
government service. So they if they just wait and
they drag their feet for four years, then they can pretty much
get most of what they want. Now this defeats the whole idea
of having a civil service and its equivalent to the
intelligence service of the foreign service because there's
providing a service not servicing themselves in their
own agendas. So they they'll slow walk these
types of things. They'll do the same with issuing
or doing the background investigations for security
clearances. So they'll take their time on
it, dragging their feet so that the individual they don't like
will never get the background investigation finished so he can
be given a security clearance. And now you have, if Trump is
elected this fall, he'll only, he'll only be president for four
years. He cannot run for for another
term. So all the bureaucrats are going
to know this is just a one term president and we're just going
to give him a very hard time and drag our feet.
Right. So I've got to ask the question,
is Trump smart enough second time?
If he gets in for the second time, is he smart enough to
realise his mistake before and to be properly prepared to deal
with these these problems when he comes in?
Could he get it right this time? He could.
He's got a lot of outside help this time.
A lot of seasoned people have known known the problem.
He's also been terribly burned by this.
He's paid a terrible personal cost for this with the law fair
waged against him and the and the again, the security apparat
continuing to go after him. Imagine raiding the home of a
former president to to get documents that he actually got
legally, because under his authority, any president can
declassify whatever he likes and he can he can have custody of
those documents in a security area for his own use in writing
his memoirs or starting his library or whatever else.
But imagine that the FBI could actually raid the former
president's home and disrupt everything.
This, you know, so this this affected Trump very personally.
And he now is, is developing a plan.
There was some some material published today about part of
that plan, about what to do with the FBII think it needs to be
strengthened, but at least it's an action plan and it's been
vetted by seasoned lawyers who'd served for a long time in the
Justice Department before. So yes, he's going to be there
with a plan, right, right on Election Day, and then he'll
have that period up to January to begin implementing that plan
behind the scenes so he can launch it on day one.
OK, now I've got to, I've got to keep myself in check here
because I want to go. I want to stay on the subject to
the psychological warfare. But this is really interesting
with Trump. He comes in and he tries to do
these things. What's your assessment of the
political will in America? Do you think that if he starts
to do the right thing, more senators will start to be braver
and to actually start to push in the right direction?
I, I can't give you a good answer on this.
Everything requires leadership. And if he came in the first time
as an outsider, most people, most Americans think that people
from New York City are obnoxious.
And so if, if you look at Trump's personality, he's very
much a New Yorker. He's not just Donald Trump.
Look at Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, also from New
York City, a very obnoxious man, but a very powerful man.
So there's a question of, of, of what kind of leadership do you
provide? Do you provide leadership that
inspires and leads, or do you inspire?
Do you provide leadership that alienates?
And I think he's gone more toward the you can see him now
with more of a welcoming mentality to bring more people
around him, to be more forgiving to people who had opposed him
before and to create that larger alliance that he had lacked
before. So I think, yes, he did not try
to engage Congress when he was president before.
He didn't do a very good job of that at all.
This time, you can see that he's building his political base in
both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I've only just started with what I'd like to ask you.
So if I let you go now because you you've got another
commitment pressing you could could we effectively finish this
part with a bit a bit more time and another?
Date at your convenience. Want to do Part 3?
Well, yeah, because, because I'd like to just drift Trump to ask
you a little bit about Ukraine. But then the other thing was
that this this whole bit about how this psychological attack is
affecting people and what it's doing and what we can do about
it, This is where I'd ultimately like to get.
Because if people are saying we can't even trust our own
security services, they're lost. And how do we reassure people
and what should we be, you know, showing that they can do or what
should they be thinking about? I'd like to get somewhere where
we can say there's a beast attacking us.
How do we deal with it? I've got some ideas myself, but
I'm particularly interested in in how you view this because I I
sense by the time you got to conclusions in your book, you
were at the point where you're thinking, yeah, we got to do
something about this. And you said something like,
we're not going to lose or there's still time.
That's what you said. There's still time to do
something, but what should we be doing?
That's where I'd like to get with you.
Yeah, well, well, in a nutshell right now, we could go into it
later on the the the way the career paths move.
You've had now these radicalised critical theorists, cultural
Marxists have been, you know, they're more than halfway
through their careers. So with one more presidential
term, they'll be running all of these intelligence organizations
with, you know, without any checks and balances on them.
So that's one of the reasons that this next presidential
administration is so important is because it's that that career
is chain of radical takeover has to be broken.
Yeah, absolutely. And just to just give you a
little teaser, I bought a number of books with me which I I
thought you might be interested in some of the things.
But this, this is a book that made a big impact on me.
The the it's basically U.S. Navy aviator, great experience.
But he also did some work in the US Ministry of Defence.
And the book was from trust to terror, Radical feminism is
destroying the US Navy. And this was a book that I came
across many years ago. It's not very thick.
It's it, you know, you can, you know that somebody's really
written it from the heart. But here was AUS Navy aviator
warning that the radical feminism was doing something
really dangerous inside the American military.
And to me, this this was a book that helped my thinking about
this psychological attack. But we'll, we'll save that.
Well, Mike, I've got to say thank you very much for joining
us. It's been really excellent.
And I'm really looking forward to getting you back to continue
this discussion into the psychological attack on not only
the US, but Western countries. Thank you for joining us.