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.