Peter Dale Scott dissects the "American Deep State," a secret network of CIA, NSA, and corporate contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton that allegedly orchestrates "deep events" from JFK's assassination to 9/11. He details how the Doomsday Network was repurposed for domestic control under Reagan, while the Safari Club facilitated covert operations outside Congressional oversight. Scott argues that intelligence agencies hijack policy, suppressing dissent through tactics like the "October Surprise" and media blackouts of Gary Webb's drug trafficking reports. Ultimately, he warns that this self-perpetuating machinery ensures the mindset chooses the president, necessitating a shift from militarized surveillance to addressing global warming. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Deep State and Organized Crime00:14:19
Hi, this is Dark Journalist.
Today I have a special episode for you.
We're going to dive into the subterranean covert world of the deep state with the man who coined the term Berkeley professor and best selling author Peter Dale Scott.
Now, Professor Scott's new book, The American Deep State, is a powerful crowning achievement in his lifelong work of exposing hidden forces inside and outside of government that have hijacked public policy and corrupted the political process in America.
Now, Professor Scott has linked what he calls deep events, such as 9 11 and the JFK assassination. To an obscure official structure called the Doomsday Network that represents secret, unconstitutional, unchecked power.
Are we ready to look at what he's discovered?
Here we go Professor Peter Dale Scott, Deep State, CIA, Secret Government, and the Doomsday Network.
Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?
No, sir.
It does not.
Not wittingly.
Britain's Guardian newspaper obtained a copy of a secret court order authorizing the data collection.
The document shows the information is being collected indiscriminately and in bulk.
We really are in a period of insanity right now.
America has gone crazy about terrorism and is responding in ways which are increasing the terrorism, and some people are very happy to do that because it's intensely profitable.
You know, in preparing to interview Professor Scott, it occurred to me just how influential his many books on the deep state that operates under the public state have been on the alternative media.
His innovative terms and meticulous research often go uncredited.
Of course, the mainstream media tries hard to keep his findings on how intelligence agencies, organized crime, and corporate interests often collude toward the same goal buried under absurd terms like conspiracy theory.
But I can tell you that the best authors in the field of covert politics understand that Professor Scott's work is the gold standard in this field.
So let's get started.
Professor, it's great to have you here.
First off, I want to say that the American Deep State is your greatest book.
Thank you.
Now, I thought we'd start our discussion today by having you define what the deep state is.
What does it encompass?
And how would an average person understand its role in our daily lives?
Okay, well, we can begin by saying that there is a gap and a tension between the institutions that are defined by the Constitution or responsible to the Constitution on one level.
And then the second level, institutions like the CIA and the NSA, which operate in secret.
There's something about secret power that is not controllable, and it's very important that the CIA's budget has never been exclusively a budget voted by Congress.
So it's a level of the deep state higher than the public state.
And then I want to go to a third level.
Well, we skip to the fourth level, which are ultimately Roosevelt himself said to a friend back in 1933 You and I know that a financial element has been controlling this country since the age of Jackson.
Well, that is a you know, wow, that's the ultimate level, I think, is extreme wealth and the institutions that deal with extreme wealth.
But in between, there's a A third, public level, CIA level, and then companies like Booz Allen, Hamilton, that interface with the CIA, recruit from the CIA, and are recruited by the CIA.
And then they also work with corporations all over the world and with banks all over the world.
And the same thing happens.
A revolving door both between these corporations and the CIA and also between these corporations and the highest level of banks and major oil companies and so on.
Okay.
And so the ensemble is a level, you have levels of government, some of which are written about in the media and some of which are not written about in the media.
You very rarely see Booz Allen Hamilton in the headlines, but If you write what I would call a deep history of, say, American relations with Egypt, the CIA is going to be in that history, and the Booz Allen Hamilton are going to be in that history.
Right.
So, ordinarily, we're looking at the public side of our society elective government, law and order justice, daily news reporting, and that kind of thing.
But underneath, there are these deep state forces that are operating in contracting for intelligence agencies in corporate, financial, and political circles.
And they are having an impact with very little transparency.
Right.
So there's a lot of things in the deep state that I talk about in this woolly way because we think of history as taught in universities archival history, working with documents.
And that gives us, I mean, that's a good method, and we get good history, but we get limited history because a lot of what's going on in the deep state is undocumented.
Right.
And when people like me try to write deep history, we have to resort to all kinds of techniques to fill the vacuum.
Because we don't have, as a rule, every now and then we're lucky and we get a document here.
Yes.
Well, there have been some breakthroughs, I would say, with Freedom of Information Act requests, even if they are few and far between.
Now, can you think of a document that, when it came out, it just made you stop and say, this is major?
A key one.
We have the CIA document after the Kennedy assassination instructing the media on how to handle it.
And they use the phrase conspiracy theory.
As far as I know, that's the first time that we have a document that talks about conspiracy theory.
Yeah.
It's CIA.
Telling the newspapers how to attack people like me.
Right, and the basic instructions from the CIA to their media assets was call them conspiracy theorists, and that will have the effect of marginalizing them and take some of the heat off.
Right, exactly.
Well, we don't get many of those documents, we get a few, but we have to look around the known world that we see and we read about in the newspapers.
And I think actually most Americans have some awareness of this.
You know, if they live in a city like Chicago, Sure.
Maybe not now, but 50 years ago, the mob was in City Hall, and anybody who had anything to do with City Hall knew that because they had to pay certain people off and so on.
Right.
It's not in the official history of Chicago.
Well, this is interesting because you've done some real investigation on how organized crime is a component of the deep state and has these connections that we don't hear very much about.
That's where I really began with this kind of analysis because I wrote a book called Deep Politics and the Death of JFK.
That's an excellent book.
The biggest gap in the Warren report is when they were saying that Ruby was a loner, when Ruby was obviously somebody very clued in with the mob, and that's half of it.
Also, very clued in with Dallas High Society, and above all, clued in with the Dallas police.
And we actually have testimony from Dallas police officers saying they used Jack Ruby as an informant on the drug traffic.
And we have somebody else who told the FBI that a big drug deal only went through in Dallas after Jack Ruby gave the okay on him.
Now, the Warren Commission received these documents and then they said he was a loner.
Well, that taught me that you have to see more to politics than what's on the record.
Organized crime was where I went in.
That led me to the drug traffic, it led me to the CIA.
Yes, and you found that interface between the CIA and organized crime.
In your book, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, you outline all of these intelligence connections that Oswald had and how, through these connections, he was set up to appear in a certain way as a kind of leftist loner.
And that this method was actually used in 9 11 also, but there it was applied to 19 people instead of just one.
Yes, I think I do.
I have more than one book where I draw.
Attention to the analogies between Kennedy assassination and 9 11.
And this is one of them that the what I call the designated culprits were already known to the agencies, the CIA in particular.
And in both cases, the CIA was covering up both on Oswald and on the alleged hijackers to make sure that they would not be rounded up before the deep events that they are attached to, because then the Wouldn't have been the designated culprits.
I see.
So, on a certain level, they're being protected right up to the point where they can be used in a scapegoat role.
Right.
And that's a matter of history now with Oswald, but it should be a matter of grave concern and actually is right now people campaigning to get those 28 pages from the joint congressional investigation of 9 11 leased because it will show we pretty well know a good deal of the story by now anyway, but it would be an official documentation.
Of the Saudi money going to these alleged hijackers, the CIA's protection of these hijackers, the lying, saying that they had given money to the information to the FBI when in fact they had refused to give, as they should have, given the information to the FBI.
All of that would come out.
That would be one way, I think, of ending the state of emergency we're in, to see the really corrupt way in which it was instituted.
In 9 11, in the first place.
Right.
So you could almost say that Oswald and the hijackers share this kind of archetype of how to portray someone as an off balance fanatic, but with no outside connections to any state sponsors or intelligence organizations.
Yeah.
One of the things that you've said in relation to this state of emergency that we're still in is that we've actually been under it for 13 years already, but a lot of people don't seem to know that.
Or that Northcom has, since 2008, an army division based here in America.
That's set up to deal with public unrest.
So these are two things you don't hear a whole lot about, but are critical in your view.
Yes.
I mean, I think one of the difficult periods of American history was the Reconstruction era when the South was, in effect, subjugated and occupied by an army.
And the Reconstruction ended with a disputed election in which a president was elected by a deal to end.
The occupation, which they did.
And so we had a century of Jim Crow, thankfully, somewhat over now, not complete.
But we also had the Kami Tattoos Acts, which became part of the effective American style of government that you do not use the military in a permanent way for law enforcement and homeland security.
And we upended that.
The division has been there since 2008, but Northcom has been there since.
2002 was part of the, and it had been planned for by COG.
Three things had been planned for warrantless surveillance, we don't know about that now from the student, warrantless detention, and most people are not aware of that.
Just yesterday, I found a very knowledgeable man, not aware that something like a thousand Muslims, maybe more, were rounded up after 9 11 without a warrant, without charges, held.
Interrogated in the case of one man that I talked to, badly beaten until there was blood in his urine.
Wow.
And this is, you know, reminds me of the Jews in Germany and also being persecuted and punished, and people afterwards say, Oh, I didn't know.
Americans would say, honestly, they didn't know about these Muslims, but they should.
Clinton Era Atomic Attack Plans00:13:39
Yeah.
They should because it is a blot that the we have habeas corpus is mentioned in the Constitution, but it was just.
Torn into shreds by COG planning.
And so you have warrantless surveillance, warrantless detention, and the permanent militarization of Homeland Security.
Originally with plans for martial law, we don't quite have that, but we do have now a military component, not only to law enforcement and dealing with disturbances, but also surveillance.
The military are involved in the Surveillance of people like you and me.
Exactly.
And they shouldn't be.
Yeah.
Now, on COG, this is something you've done some amazing research on and really brought to light.
But there's a common misconception out there that COG was something that was around during the Cold War and then sort of went away in the 90s.
But that's not the case, is it?
No.
And just to clarify, COG is continuity of government in which the government would implement emergency planning in the event of an incredible emergency.
An atomic attack originally.
Right, an atomic attack, exactly.
The decapitation of the government.
See, the Constitution says oh, if you lose the president, then the vice president becomes the president.
But supposing a bomb lands on Washington and you lose the president and the vice president and the speaker of the House, this was very legitimate planning to deal with an atomic attack because we were threatening atomic attacks from time to time, and so was Russia.
But what happened right after the Reagan Revolution in 1982, they started this was Casey and I think Vice President Bush, and certainly Oliver North, who was the executive officer.
They started conceiving of COG, continuity of government planning, to deal with domestic crises.
Rounding up Hispanics who were supporting the Sandinistas, but Hispanics in this country, citizens in this country.
And they passed an executive order towards the end of Reagan's administration, which said that COG planning was to deal with any emergency, not just an atomic emergency.
And then in 1994, there was an unfortunate story in the New York Times by, I believe, Tim Weiner, that said that there was, it actually said, That all of this COG planning had ceased.
And it was true that they decided to not work after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
They ceased planning for an atomic attack, but they did not at all cease planning for the implementation of COG.
And in fact, they intensified it.
And what was really disturbing here was that in 1994, we had a Democratic president, Clinton.
Right.
And according to a very good book by Andrew Coburn, Clinton didn't really know what was going on, but the planning continued.
And this is, to me, very significant that two of the key planners have been in there ever since 1982 and were in there up until Bush was elected, or if that's the word, in 2000, were Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
They spent 20 years planning for the implementation of COG, and then on 9 11, while the president was out of the Capitol, those same two men implemented it.
And because they had the power to do it, because the executive order said it was for any emergency, and they said 9 11 is an emergency.
And they proclaimed, when the president got back, he proclaimed officially an emergency, and that's the emergency we're still under.
And that's why there's a permanent army brigade stationed inside the United States to deal with any dissident rally that might get out of control.
We're in a kind of, I don't want to say police state, because we used to have police running us, but no, now we have the military in charge of Homeland Security.
And that's in contravention of the comitatus laws that we used to have.
So, it's a very significant change, and my book hopes that we will do something about this.
And the very first step, as far as I'm concerned, is to have a debate in Congress to end this state of emergency.
Very interesting.
Now, a couple of points I want to pick up on there.
When you're talking about continuity of government planning going on behind the scenes, now, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were, at times when they were making these plans, not even in government.
They were private citizens in high ranking corporate positions.
Is that right?
Exactly.
They were chairmen of organizations the whole time.
That was the status of Rumsfeld.
In the 1980s, most of the 1980s, Cheney was a congressman from Wyoming.
Right.
Why a single congressman should be picked out to plan for this is planning for suspension of the Constitution.
This is very serious planning.
Never authorized by Congress.
It was all done by executive order.
And then in the 90s, under Clinton, Cheney was, of course, briefly Secretary of Defense with the first President Bush.
But then he was the CEO of Halliburton.
Halliburton had a huge stake in what was going on because they were heavily involved in the development of U.S. oil investments in Kazakhstan and Central Asia.
And one of the chief consequences of 9 11 has been putting U.S. troops into Afghanistan and then Iraq, which was of major importance for the oil companies in Kazakhstan.
They wanted to have U.S. troops around to make sure that the president of Kazakhstan would listen to the United States and not just to Russia, which also had troops in the area.
So Halliburton was not disinterested in this.
But yes, you had two CEOs of private U.S. corporations planning for the U.S. suspension of the U.S. Constitution.
And it was done, according to Andrew Coburn, in the 90s.
It was different from the 80s.
In the 1980s, it had Democrats and Republicans.
But the group in the Pentagon, who were planning specifically on military responses in the 1990s, According to Coburn, nearly all Republicans who really had, who despised Clinton.
So it was like a government in waiting for what we got in the year 2000, thanks to the Supreme Court.
Right, right.
And one of the main players, if we want to predate the 90s and take a look at the 80s, was Oliver North, who, of course, was a key figure in the Iran Contra scandal.
Right.
Now, what can you tell us about North and some of his positioning in relation to COG?
You mentioned one intriguing thing in the book that he was very involved in called Rex 84.
Can you tell us about that?
Right.
I should have said that from the very beginning, well, FEMA was created under Carter, and I think that their role was political from the beginning.
I don't want to get into the Carter era, but in the Reagan era, they were the support group for COG planning.
The executive officer for the COG planning was North, who, of course, was also the operations man on the Now, one of the biggest budget items of COG planning was to set up an alternative communications network which was independent of the basic government communications network.
This is sometimes called the Doomsday Network.
That's the Pentagon's own term for it.
Just as the seat of government, if there had been an atomic plan, would have been what they call the Doomsday Plane.
I have the cover of my book, which I hope you can see.
Oh, yeah.
That's Doomsday Plane Over the White House, because that actually happened on 9 11, and nobody has ever been able to explain why a plane was there over the White House, which, of course, is prohibited airspace.
No airplane ever is supposed to be there on that particular day.
There was.
Anyway, sorry, what was the question again?
Oh, yes, it was about Rex 84.
X84.
That was an exercise.
The EX in there is an exercise, but it was an exercise in rounding up Americans.
So that is a clear sign that we've changed the emphasis on continuity of government planning to kind of civilian control.
And that's, of course, the feature of Oliver North's activities.
But There's a close intimacy between the COG planning and the Iran Contra affair because most of the, or certainly the early stages of sending arms to Iran was not authorized.
And Oliver North had a solution to that.
He used the emergency network that had been set up for COG.
For the practical job of getting arms sent through Portugal without the US ambassador to Lisbon being aware of this.
So that it was the underpinning for what Oliver North was doing.
And this is maybe getting a bit ahead of your questioning, but one of the things I say in my book is that the COG network, the Doomsday Network, Figures in all of these major deep events.
9 11 itself, it was implemented on that day.
That's why the president and the vice president all through that day didn't stay in town together.
First of all, Cheney, who was in Washington, told Bush to stay away.
And then when Bush came back, Bush went, by the way, to Offutt Air Force Base, which is the base for the Doomsday Planes.
And then when he came back, Cheney went away.
And he went away for 90 days and lived inside a hollowed out mountain, which was part of the planning for COG.
He took a huge staff with him, almost 100 people.
And what they did is off the books.
But I bet.
We can speculate with some certainty that that's where they were fined the Patriot Act, which emerged out of nowhere.
And certainly something called Project Endgame, which was a massive program for building detention centers, which was a kind of implementation of what had been.
Exercised in REX 84 back 17 years before.
And who do you think they're planning to detain in these centers according to the documents?
Well, I can say with more confidence about the 1984 period, they were very focused on Hispanics because they didn't want domestic protest to what Reagan was doing with the Sandinistas.
Okay.
And there was a group called CISPES.
And it came under attack from a number of directions.
The FBI, the CIA set up something they shouldn't have set up.
But specifically, the detention centers would have been rounding up members of CISPES.
And if there were not nationals, then deporting them back to Central America.
Angola Deal and Doomsday Network00:15:50
And that did actually happen.
And it was really sending people off to a death sentence if you took somebody from CISPES in America.
Sent them back to El Salvador.
You had a ruthless military dictatorship in El Salvador, and there were all kinds of killings going on.
Then none were killed, Jesuits were killed, a bishop was murdered.
It was a very bloody time in Central America, and I regret to say that the things that Vice President Bush and William Casey Who was the head of the CIA at the time, and Oliver North in particular, the things they were doing were war crimes.
And I don't know if we'll ever get some kind of accounting for that, but they were definitely war crimes.
Yeah, that's fascinating.
Now, when you speak about deep events and how they were linked with this Doomsday Network, let's take a snapshot of all the major deep events that have happened, starting with the JFK assassination, bringing us up to the present.
What would you say are the five most crucial deep events that have happened in American history?
Yes, well, when we come to the Kennedy assassination, what's that got to do with the Doomsday Network?
The answer is well, there are many.
It's quite a complex answer, but I'll just single out one salient detail to stand for the rest.
And that is that the Secret Service agent who came down from Washington to plan the parade route, which ended up going by the school book depository where Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot at the president.
Yeah.
That Secret Service agent was using the White House communications, all his communications were on the White House Communications Agency network, which was a branch of the Doomsday Network.
And if I could jump fast forward to 9 11 before I fill in what's in between.
Sure.
That network, I'm sure, was used again on 9 11, and the 9 11 Commission.
Looking for key decisions that were made, like the implementation of COG, they reported that they could find no record of the phone calls.
And in another book I wrote, The Road to 9 11, which I summarize in this book, I made an argument that Cheney, you know, spent right in the middle of all this crisis.
He was not in the what we call the PEOC, or the Emergency Operations Center underneath the White House.
He was somewhere else at a telephone.
That was, I'm quite convinced, a Doomsday network telephone.
And the 9 11 Commission report records that, yes, COG was implemented on that day.
And then they have a footnote in which they say they did not look into COG.
Well, that's like saying they didn't look into the very heart of 9 11.
Exactly.
The really key decisions, I think, were made on the COG.
Network, and they, I don't think they were ever given access to that network, so they tried to cover that up by saying it's okay, we just didn't look into it.
Well, we didn't look into it because they couldn't look into it because they didn't have the clearances.
All right, now let's go back.
After the Kennedy assassination, and this man, Winston Lawson, who was this key Secret Service agent, by the way, not the only person.
I have a whole article that's complicated.
Yeah.
We come to Watergate, and the key burglar, James McCord, was also part of a secret Air Force unit that was planning for rounding up.
I could read you the description if you like.
We know what his job was there, and it was part, again, he was part of the Doomsday Network.
That's interesting.
John Dean, who is the man who caused so much trouble for Nixon inside the White House, says in his book Worse Than Watergate, he mentions that he was in charge of COG planning when he was in the Pentagon before he went to the White House.
So he actually took part in the COG planning.
So you have two key figures, John Dean and James McCord, both part of this Doomsday Network.
The Doomsday Network.
When we come to the prevention of the re election of Carter, I really don't have very much to say there, but I will speculate.
This is, I think, maybe.
And here you're speaking about the October surprise.
Yeah.
Arms went to Israel then.
Right.
And many books say that the networks that were used to send arms to Israel in 1980 were the same networks that were used.
To send arms to Israel in 1985 86.
That brings us, in other words, to Iran Contra.
Okay.
Absolutely no doubt that Oliver North was part of the Doomsday planning in 1985 86.
We have these documents like Rex 84.
And there's absolutely no doubt that he used what it was called, I think, Flashboard at the time.
That was his name for it.
But he was using a network outside of the regular communications network.
To negotiate these arms deals.
So I suspect, though I have no proof, that if the setup in 1985 was the setup in 1980, then the secret network would have been used then too, because there were so many deep state personnel involved in this negotiating of the arms deal.
And, you know, William Casey was not yet the director of central intelligence.
Right.
Had intelligence connections, and he was definitely a key figure in 1980 in flying to Paris and negotiating with Iranians about getting arms to Iran in exchange for a commitment not to release the hostages that had been seized in the U.S. Embassy.
And this proved to be true.
They were not to be released until Reagan was inaugurated.
The day that Reagan was inaugurated is the day that Iran released the hostages.
That's a kind of corroboration that this deal was made.
Fascinating.
And we have Vice President Bush deeply involved in these operations.
He was North's boss.
Right.
They had a structure.
There's a lot of different initials for different committees and things.
But over and over, it's Vice President Bush's responsibility, and Oliver North is the executive officer.
It is interesting how Bush Sr. shows up over and over again in these deep events.
And I guess we need to remember that he was the CIA director in 1976.
And that's one thing that got my attention when you wrote that 1976 was a crucial year in deep state activity.
And you tied it in with all these Saudi arms shipments.
And in a previous book, I read you were going to skip the Ford era completely.
But eventually you realized all of these important things happened there.
And it was a critical period of time to cover.
Right.
And that really all happened in my thinking when I was writing The Road to 9 11.
And I ended up devoting a whole chapter.
To what I call the, well, I saw it anyway as, yes, the critical period of change.
A number of things happened then.
First of all, Congress had started to look into what the CIA was doing, and elements of the CIA and Vice President Bush, when he became the director, was a key figure in this.
They essentially went offshore.
They said, if Congress is going to look at us, well, then we'll have other people do things for us.
That's the year in which something called the Safari Club was created.
Right, right.
And can you give just a quick description of what the Safari Club was and who was in it?
The Safari Club is a coming together of the heads of intelligence.
America doesn't figure in the masthead of the Safari Club, but they're behind it pulling the strings.
One key figure is Alexandre de Marange.
Who was the head of STEC, which is the French intelligence network?
And he becomes a key figure advising Reagan even before Reagan is inaugurated.
He's part of the kitchen cabinet advising Reagan.
And then after that, he is the head of Savak in Iran.
And this is very significant because the U.S. ambassador to Iran at this time is Richard Helms, who formerly had been the head of the CIA.
Oh, yeah.
And then you get the head of Saudi intelligence and the head of Egyptian intelligence.
And they start doing covert operations.
And to give one key example, they get very involved in Angola.
Why Angola?
Why involved in Angola?
Because Congress had passed the so called Clark Amendment, I think in 1975, which prohibited the CIA from conducting any more operations in Angola.
So they got around the problem by having other people do what the CIA had.
And they were in close contact.
I see.
This is where the deep state comes in because these were not formal connections between the CIA and the Safari Club.
This was a network of old boys like Richard Helms.
And of course, George H.W. Bush, when he was head of CIA in 1976, was not a stranger to the agency and he was not a stranger to the Middle East because he had run this offshore.
Drilling company Zapata Petroleum had contracts in the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, and so he was very much at home in that part of the world.
They just bypassed the regular bureaucracy.
Well, it sounds like the covert players formed their own kind of shadow CIA with their own rules, but do we know how the regular CIA leadership was viewing their activities?
Stansfield Turner was nominally the head of the CIA.
Under Carter, but he didn't really know what was going on.
He got rid of some people, Theodore Shackley being the most famous one.
And those people, instead of just going home to write a book, they got involved with the Safari Club and advised them.
So, and that's one of the two big things about 1976.
But the other one, perhaps even more important, this restructured the whole.
Or prevented a restructure of the Cold War.
The CIA had been advising for some time.
This is the intelligence side of the CIA as opposed to the covert operations side of the CIA, and there's always been tension between those two sides.
Yes.
They were saying that the Soviet Union is not the enemy that it once was.
And this was anathema to the people who wanted to keep the Cold War going.
Sure.
This resulted in the head of the CIA at that time.
Help me, Bush's predecessor, Director Colby.
Yes, William Colby was fired because he was putting up these intelligence reports.
Right.
And George H.W. Bush, the father, was put in as head of CIA.
And then he created something called Team B. Which he brought in a bunch of these are the advanced neocons.
These are the predecessors of the people who created the project for the new American century in 2000, which really called for all the things that were implemented after 9 11.
And back in 76, they said, no, the CIA's been wrong all along.
And the CIA, sorry, the Soviet Union is a major threat and they're spending a lot of money.
In fact, they were spending a lot of money, but it was.
Defensive.
America had been spending so much against them.
Yes.
And when the missile crisis had proved that America was on top, and the Soviets were trying to get parity, and I think the previous team had admitted that.
But this got expanded into no, the Soviet Union wants to take over the universe, certainly take over the globe.
And we're still debating this a bit among the Soviet.
Historians, but I think the consensus now is pretty much that the Team B assessment was wildly off base and that the original CIA assessment was closer.
But the effects of this were huge because Carter had been elected on a promise to reduce the defense budget.
That would have been a returning to normalcy path.
And not only did he not reduce it because of all these ominous threats from Team B.
He expanded it.
We talk about the Reagan increases in the defense budget.
They became huge under Reagan, but they didn't begin under Reagan.
They began under Carter.
That again shows you how the president is not really the man who runs the country, and that processes that go on in the deep state, or in this case in the CIA, can determine his agenda in a way which he will not be happy with.
It's another example where presidents don't set agendas.
And I think that we've seen it with Obama recently.
Dulles, OPC, and Presidential Lies00:15:46
Oh, yeah.
He made a Middle East speech back in 2009, which was very promising, but almost everything that's happened since then has worked against rather than in the spirit of his original speech.
Definitely.
That's when I say now the deep state is thoroughly ensconced in our government.
And as I said in the American War Machine, there's a mindset in Washington, and the president doesn't choose the mindset.
The mindset chooses the president.
Aha.
The regime we're under now, I think.
Well, that really rings true when you look at the state of things now.
A couple of things that you have in the book about how the deep state basically hijacked COG planning and also FEMA, which is an agency that was originally set up to deal with natural disasters, like floods and earthquakes, for example.
So essentially, the deep state figured out if we take over these two government functions, we can implement these authoritarian style policies through them.
Now, is that a fair statement?
My problem is what you just said.
You're in the ballpark.
Okay, good.
My problem is I do not posit that there has been a secret conspiracy to take over the government.
All right.
I think there are processes always going on.
I was four years in the Canadian government, and I spent six months in Washington in 1987 trying to help Senator Kerry investigate Contras and drug trafficking.
And that is a very good investigative report that Carrie put together.
Yes.
Going back to it now, it seems pretty advanced.
Harry not in power was much better than Harry in power, and that's unfortunately often the case with politicians.
Yes, well, it seems like all that he wants to do now is go in and attack Syria, basically.
Now, anyway, what goes on in government, particularly American government, which is so huge, nobody really controls it.
I do think that people at certain moments made some key decisions.
I think.
I can't prove this, but I think there was a high level decision that, who made it, I don't know, but that Kennedy had to go.
It was a high level decision that Nixon had to go.
It was a high level decision that Carter had to go.
But they were always ad hoc things, not like this is step one in establishing the deep state.
It was just no, the president has to go.
But once these processes are in motion, Then they acquire their own logic.
For example, if the governing media of this country commit themselves to the position that the president was killed by a lone nut with no connections to anything, even though he had extensive CIA files and BI files, then they're committed to lying for eternity, really.
For them to tell the truth about the Kennedy assassination, Would mean to have to say we participated in a lie, a lie for the public good, but nonetheless a lie.
So that's just an example of what I mean about processes acquiring their own logic.
And I think it's not been a single group.
When I talk about how the COG Doomsday Network has been involved, that's not always the same people.
You get overlaps.
There are overlaps between people in the Kennedy assassination and people in Watergate.
In fact, I'd already written a manuscript about the Kennedy assassination before Watergate, and in it I had mentioned a man called Frank Fiorini, who, under a different name, turned up on the front page of the New York Times as one of the Watergate burglars.
Interesting.
And this is Frank Sturgis.
Yes, this was Frank Fiorini.
And there are examples over and over and over, but there is, I think, no example of somebody involved both in the Kennedy assassination and also in 9 11.
No, these are processes.
The instruments are there, the machinery is there, the personnel keep changing.
But I think Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of the 1976.
Well, no, that's why I wrote that chapter.
They were definitely part of this transition in 1976 because it really happened when Donald Rumsfeld was chief of staff under Ford.
In the White House, and Cheney was his number one assistant.
So they've been around from 1976 right through the COG planning, right down to the implementation of 9 11 and the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War.
So they're key players in this sense because they were in the Ford administration during that crucial transition.
Then they were key to setting up COG in and out of government.
And then Cheney shows up as to.
Defense Secretary under Bush 1 versus Saddam in Desert Storm.
Right.
So we have all that, and then later they show up in the project for a new American century, running ads that say, you know, we need a new catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor, to get people to support their vision of America.
Yes.
And America's role in the world.
And publicly for what they were planning privately.
Yes, exactly.
There's that link between PNAC and the COG planning.
And there was a kind of plan brought up when Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1992.
See, the deep state has many factions in it.
Somebody thought this was too extreme and leaked it to the New York Times, and so it didn't happen in 1992.
It had to wait until George W. Bush after 2001.
There's one other thing about Cheney.
When there was a, you know, frequently we have these deep events and then we get a commission or we get an investigation.
In the case of Iran Contra, There was a joint special committee of Congress that, quote, investigated, close quote, Iran Contra, and it was, from my point of view, largely a whitewash.
Yes.
Because they didn't really get into the drug aspect of it, which was huge.
And Cheney was the senior Republican congressman on the House side of that.
And he produced a minority report at the time.
Which essentially said Reagan was right to do all these things, and all he violated were these post Watergate reforms, which were terrible.
We should never have had them.
And that has always been.
Cheney is of the two.
Cheney was the intellectual, if you like, the theorist.
Okay.
And who frequently, again, he was on a plane with a bunch of journalists, and he took time out to say how wrong.
Congress had been to try and establish limits and congressional restraints on the CIA.
And so, yes, he has been a theorist, but this is not all attributable to one man or two men or ten men.
I see, yeah.
The process, the deep state interferes with the public state.
Well, it's very interesting that one of the key mechanisms that the deep state likes to use to intrude on the public state is CIA operations.
First of all, one thing we have to realize is that the connections, the CIA is connected in one direction with Congress and government, but it's connected in another direction with Wall Street and big oil and other major U.S. international corporations.
And the history of the CIA really begins on Wall Street with Alan Dulles, when he is a lawyer, drawing up a kind of charter which then goes to Washington and becomes the National Security Act.
Truman originally did not want a CIA, and when Donovan had a plan to perpetuate the OSS that was the wartime predecessor of the CIA, Truman threw it out.
And eventually he accepted a CIA, but he was very careful.
The CIA was full of Wall Street people at the vice director level, but the head of it, Truman never chose someone from Wall Street.
Always chose someone from mid America in the Western states where he himself was from.
And then after Kennedy was assassinated, Truman made a very important intervention which was immediately challenged in the media, but I think he spoke truth.
He said, like two weeks after the Kennedy assassination, when I set up the CIA, I never intended them to get into these covert operations.
Right.
I think history will bear an amount on that.
Well, let's take a look now at how the CIA got into the business of covert operations.
You know, we have the National Security Act that creates the CIA in 1947.
So, where's the first major covert action that sets the tone for all of these secret projects to come?
The very first covert operation was in 1948 when they put money into the Italian election.
To help defeat the Communist Party.
Well, that was a Wall Street operation, which then the CIA took over at the insistence of Alan Dulles, who was still a lawyer on Wall Street.
Wow.
So Dulles at the time didn't even have an official government position yet.
Right.
And then they said, well, we're going to do this sort of thing.
Well, we have to set up something.
But they didn't set it up in the CIA.
They set up something called the Office of Policy Coordination, which is just a.
Meaningless words.
Yeah.
And that became very.
It immediately had a much bigger budget than the CIA, and it did a lot of really dangerous things, some of which have still never really been properly recorded, like fighting a civil war in the Ukraine, which is coming back to haunt us now in 2015, because it's at the source of the tremendous hatreds inside the Ukraine today.
And They got into tension with the CIA, and the result was they said we have to get the OPC under control.
And so they merged it into the CIA.
And the effect of that was that it wasn't a case of the CIA taking over OPC, it was much more the opposite that OPC came in underneath and then took over the CIA.
And the CIA has been.
Dominated by its operations officers ever since.
So, could we say that the OPC was basically the covert arm of the CIA, and then at a certain point it gets the upper hand on the entire agency?
Yes, but the CIA had a hand in controlling the OPC at the beginning, but so did the Defense Department, so did the State Department.
I see.
So, the OPC were really on the loose, setting up their own actions, and the CIA basically tried to get a handle on them by merging them into the agency.
But it sounds like it backfired in a sense.
The CIA did not control OPC in that era.
And the same head of CIA, General Beadle Smith, was adamant in calling for getting the OPC under control.
It came under control into the CIA just as Eisenhower was elected president.
And that meant that Alan Dulles came in as the new head of the CIA.
And was immediately started planning major covert operations like the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran, which was a favor to the oil companies, and also the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala one year later in '54, which was a favor to United Fruit and International Railways and the Schroeder brothers.
But Schroeder brothers were also the bankers for.
Anglo Iranian oil, so you were benefiting the same people in the deep state.
Alan Dulles was the beginning of the era of major covert operations.
Truman was asked to authorize the overthrow of Mossadegh, and he refused.
Instead, he sent Harriman to Tehran to work out a deal.
Harriman proposed what I think was the sensible deal, which was that Anglo Iranian should split its profits.
With the Iranian government, and Mossadegh accepted, and Anglo Iranian refused because even though that's what was happening in Saudi Arabia with Aramco and the Saudi government, the British were too stiff necked.
They didn't want to seek to maybe be too dependent actually on.
Right.
They were pretty poor at that time.
Anyway, they didn't accept it.
But the important thing is that.
Truman is right.
He didn't authorize that kind of operation.
He never did.
Interesting.
And wait until Dulles became the DCI for those things to be the trademark of CIA.
Well, when you think about Eisenhower, who worked with Dulles and the CIA in that period, with some major intel actions going on, like Guatemala and Iran, do you think he came to see the threat of all this covert activity?
Because, of course, at the end of his term, he gave a public address on television with a farewell warning about the military industrial complex.
And if we go back and watch that, you can't really find another speech with a president warning about the military the way he did.
It's interesting the way he wrote it.
He didn't use his regular speechwriters.
It was done, it was almost a plot against the deep state to get that speech into the record.
Drug Production and Afghan Advisors00:15:32
Just as the same thing with President Kennedy, you know, he made the speech which may have led to his murder in June of 63, the American University speech.
Where he said, We are all mortal, and really called for an end to the Cold War.
And he too had to, in a very secret way, get that speech into the record.
Eisenhower was leaving anyway, and Kennedy was, of course, killed six months, five months later.
But Eisenhower was, I think, never a hawk.
I mean, these things happened under his presidency.
But I think he delegated covert operations to his vice president, a young politician called Richard Nixon, and was not very interested in what happened.
A couple of key decisions came up to him, and one was to back the French at Yin Bien Phu and use atomic weapons.
And calls for this were coming from within his apparatus.
And he was an experienced warrior and he knew the horrors of war.
And his basic thrust.
Was to keep big wars out of the picture.
And the downside of that was he wasn't very interested in small time covert operations, small from his point of view, overthrowing the elected prime minister of Iran or the elected prime minister of Guatemala.
That was just something he didn't get involved in.
The key commitments that got us into war in Indochina, they again began under Eisenhower.
But I don't think he was aware of them.
In fact, key decisions were made on days when the first key decision was made when he was on a golf course in Scotland playing golf as part of a priest.
So, why did a decision have to be made on that particular day?
Because Richard Nixon could make it when Eisenhower wasn't.
This is not the only case of that happening.
So, they were using the president basically as a figurehead and leaving him out of the loop on these key decisions.
Right.
But here's what I think is interesting about this era of the deep state.
We have Eisenhower warning about these forces in his speech.
Then you have Truman denouncing the CIA that he set up after Kennedy is assassinated.
And Truman says, I didn't create the CIA to be this out of control agency.
And then you have President Kennedy, who said he was going to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces.
So all of these presidents who work closely with intelligence are saying that this covert influence in the CIA is a threat to American freedom, basically.
Carter said that it was his policy to reduce the size and strengths of the CIA, and Turner did it mostly by taking early resignations and so on.
There were people in the agency who felt targeted by him, rightly so.
I mentioned Shackley before, I'll mention him again.
Theodore Shackley, he Let's say he was eased out.
He wasn't exactly fired, but he was made uncomfortable.
He left and he immediately joined up with the people who were working in the Safari Club to conduct offshore operations that didn't have to go to Congress for approval.
I see.
So, yes, and Carter is another victim too, yes.
Okay, so Carter also knew they were dangerous.
Well, what's fascinating is this it looks like the deep state relied on the CIA.
Then, when the CIA got into trouble in the 1970s, Being investigated over and over again for these unsanctioned operations.
Then it sounds like the safari club became where the focus of the deep state went, as far as intelligence is concerned, anyway.
So you were saying it was almost like a government in waiting because there were these ex CIA figures kind of biding their time and making deals, making arrangements, waiting for that chance to get back in power and to utilize that public state for their covert planning again.
Does that sound correct?
Yes, pretty much.
And I want to add to it something which is not mentioned enough in my book.
And this again involves Shackley that because Congress in the 70s established congressional control over the CIA, then the military started getting involved in covert operations and they set up something called the Joint Special Operations Command or JSOC.
JSOC.
And Shackley had a hand in that.
And another man called General Stilwell, who had been fired.
As a result of this flap back in 1952, he was fired by Beetle Smith for his involvement in Thailand and drove into the military.
And one of his last actions was to be an advisor in the setting up of JSOC.
And what's going on now is a lot of U.S. covert operations, and some of them not really so very covert, like the drone attacks, which was, I mean, the planning is secret, but people, if there's a drone attack, it's not a secret.
And more and more of these things are being handled under.
SOCOM, Special Operations Command, and the Joint Special, JSOC, the Joint Special, there's a whole new bunch of initials in the Pentagon to deal with this kind of warfare, which is a kind of byproduct of Congress establishing oversight over the CIA.
Okay, so I think we've tracked the deep state now to the point where Carter loses reelection in 1980, due in part to the shenanigans around the October surprise.
So, then when you get into the Reagan era, and you've touched on Oliver North already, but some interesting things are happening in the Reagan era.
Suddenly, drug traffic explodes.
There are major reports implicating the CIA in drug running.
So, people with connections to the deep state are firmly back in power.
So, we have the Contras in Nicaragua running drugs, we have Barry Seale and his ties to the drug operations in MENA, Arkansas, and the Reagan administration.
Now, I know you've done some amazing research on this.
And so let's get into that because I want to show how the drugs are related financing wise to the deep state.
Well, yes, I don't say enough about that in this book because I had said a lot about it in my last book.
But you have to remember that the dollar was under severe attack in the 70s and early 80s because of these oil price hikes.
So when Reagan was elected president, Interest rates were at 17%.
The economy was in a terrible mess.
And the Treasury started selling bearer bonds, which meant anybody could come in for cash and buy a Treasury bond.
Well, this became the number one form of laundering of drug money.
And the Treasury was advised at the time this is going to result in the laundering of drug money.
They wanted the drug money, they needed an influx of capital to help.
Bring down the interest rates and get business back to normal.
And after about six or seven years, they then stopped issuing bearer bonds.
But the atmosphere of drugs in the U.S. economy in the early 1980s isn't just the CIA.
The CIA use it, they don't get the money themselves, but they work with people who finance their own private armies with drugs.
And that was the case with the Contras.
Right, so they could say that basically we're getting better intelligence this way.
We have to work with these kind of lower elements in these lawless places.
Right.
And that is the public explanation for what they're doing, basically.
And if it's a lawless place where you happen to be against the government, like in Nicaragua, then you work with the leading opposition, which is usually the local drug traffickers.
And that was Bermudas and people who were the head of the Contras.
Well, there were different contra factions, and there was a drug connection to every faction because that was one of the ways of financing the Contras.
And before that, you know, the largest army that the CIA ever backed was the Hmong back in the 1970s in Laos.
And the CIA even gave them their own airline to help get the arms in, yes, but what did those planes go out with?
The single Hmong agricultural product was opium, and this airline flew it out.
So it was being established going right back to what I was talking about in the early.
50s and Operation Paper, you bring arms in, the planes bring the drugs out, and you don't have, you can say we don't have anything to do with the drugs, because in the case of Operation Paper, those planes, which later were known as Air America planes, were actually 60% owned in Taiwan.
So you could say, no, that's a Taiwan flight coming out, it's a CIA flight going in.
Right, right.
CIA was running the airline.
Well, you have a very interesting corollary between the drug traffic around the Vietnam War and then Afghanistan, which is the new drug war.
And to a certain extent, both of these conflicts were drug wars.
I would say that Afghanistan, I do say in my book, one of my books, it's a rerun of Laos.
Okay.
Yes.
And, you know, we get a lot in the papers about how the Taliban are financing themselves by drugs, and they are.
But everybody in Afghanistan, and certainly the established government, is always.
That is the major part of the Afghan economy, just as before it was the major part of the Laotian economy.
And the head of the Laotian army was also the head of the Laotian drug agency, but drugs were actually legal.
The only difference is that drugs, until 1971, were legal in Laos, whereas from the beginning they were illegal in Afghanistan.
But that, of course, is good for prices that.
Helps prices go up.
One of the.
Yeah, go ahead.
Well, one of the most interesting details that you point out actually is that under Taliban rule in Afghanistan, drug production had gone way down, which is amazing.
Virtually eliminated.
Yes, in one year, bang.
Wow.
There was some drug production, but it all came from the areas which were never controlled by the Taliban up in the north.
The northeast was the drug producing area in that period.
And that was, those people, the people became our allies against the Taliban.
So we're basically allying ourselves with the drug cartel in Afghanistan versus the Taliban.
As we did in the house, yes, exactly.
Right, that's fascinating.
And after we got into Afghanistan, of course, suddenly the drug production level is off the charts again.
Yes, and is again now.
It's huge.
I don't have the figures for this year, but it went.
It more than doubled from the highest year before Karzai went in.
And initially, you could almost say there was a humanitarian justification for it because the country was so wrecked by 10 years of civil war that if people had not been able to grow drugs, they would have starved.
So maybe for a year or two, you could justify allowing the drug trafficking.
I see.
We've been there for over a decade, and we're going to leave the country.
The number one heroin producer in the world, which it wasn't before the CIA became involved in.
It's very interesting, though.
When we were involved in Southeast Asia, that was the number one opium area producing in the world.
And when Nixon recognized China and cut his connections with Taiwan, and then the drug production there plummeted, at the same time, it started rising in Afghanistan.
And actually, the levels, total levels, are not all that different.
I believe that there are very powerful drug forces in the world.
That the CIA, they don't control these forces, but they are working with these forces.
And what's interesting is that the drug, first of all, the drugs started going up in Afghanistan, and sooner or later, sure enough, the CIA turned up in a big way in Afghanistan.
Now, Brzezinski was the advisor to Carter.
Who authorized operations which he himself said may lead to a Russian intervention and a civil war?
I don't know that Brzezinski knew anything about the drugs, but I think that in the deep state there are forces that saw this whole thing coming and were able, in other words, eliminating the drugs in Southeast Asia didn't have the effect of eliminating the drug traffic, it had the effect of moving it.
And the same thing happened with cocaine in Latin America.
You know, George H.W. Bush proclaimed a war on drugs in Latin America, specifically in Colombia.
And I predicted in 1990, I said, if we start this war, I predict that we will have more cocaine and not less.
And within 10 years, my prediction was borne out.
Cocaine production trebled, trebled.
In Colombia.
You want it to go down?
End the drug war.
But they don't want to end the drug war because it is part of the establishment of how America has a presence in the rest of the world.
Gary Webb Movie and Cocaine Wars00:14:29
And yes, we need.
One of my chapters is America must end its self generating wars.
What war is a self generating war because you're driving profits up and more people come in?
And the war on terrorism is a self generating war because.
You create 10 terrorists for everyone that you murder with a drone attack.
Yes, absolutely.
Well, before we leave this topic of drugs, and this is so interesting, recently there was a movie that came out based on a true story about journalist Gary Webb called Kill the Messenger.
And of course, anyone into tracking this subject knew about Webb long before the movie came out because of his excellent book, Dark Alliance, where he outlined how elements in the CIA were running drugs into major American cities.
And the movie came under nonstop attack in the mainstream media.
Yes, I was actually a consultant on it.
Oh, that's great.
Well, you really know that story.
And I'm proud to say that one of my recommendations was adopted in the movie.
Excellent.
It's a very good movie.
And it's pretty true, I mean, am I asked to say, is it essentially true?
I would say, yes, it's essentially true.
Why is it being attacked in the media?
Because the media attacked Gary Webb.
They destroyed Gary Webb.
They put him.
In a position where he couldn't make any money, and he, I think it was a suicide.
Yeah.
But it was the suicide of a man who had no income, who was starving.
Yes, I understand what you mean that there are ways to eliminate someone without actually planning out their assassination.
Yes.
Yeah, sure.
But when you think about Webb, first of all, for the person who's watching this and doesn't really know much about media manipulation, why would the media want to destroy a figure like Gary Webb, who was exposing the shady network between Central American drug running and intelligence operations and potentially being involved with shipping crack into Los Angeles?
Why would the media have a vested interest in taking a guy like that down?
Well, what are called the mainstream media and I call the governing media.
Are media that work very closely with the CIA, and hardly a day goes by when you don't see a story from Washington that says a high level official who declined to be identified said that's the CIA putting stuff into the media.
Okay.
And the media, if you want to be an important newspaper, you depend on that connection.
And the CIA does favors for the media by giving them stories that.
The media then thing, and the media defends the CIA consistently.
I mean, they're, no, I say consistently, not 100% of the time, but yes, I would say consistently, most of the time they do.
And in the case of Gary Webb, the CIA later boasted how they put out little sheets of advisories to things to say about Gary Webb.
And the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, they all chipped in and attacked Gary Webb.
Particularly scandalous in the case of the LA Times, because Gary Webb relied very heavily on an LA Times story, Ricky Ross, the King of Crack in LA.
Right.
He used that story, and then the same reporter working for the LA Times then attacked Webb and said, That's a great exaggeration, the things you claim.
For Ricky Ross.
And that same reporter, I believe, since then has somewhat repented and apologized for having played this double role.
You know, I had this same experience with some of the people that are mentioned in the Gary Webb book because my job, I worked for a little think tank in Washington in '87, and a part of it was doing research and sending stuff up to.
I didn't deal much with Kerry.
I dealt mostly with his executive assistant on the committee.
But I also did stories to give to the press.
And I began to see a pattern.
These people would say, Oh, yes, we're very interested.
Is there anything more you know?
Tell us.
No, we're going to do a huge story.
And then they wouldn't do the story.
And the people who wouldn't do the story were the people who became the character assassins dealing with Gary Webb a few weeks later.
I mean, I'm not going to name names, but I could name names.
And that's their job.
You know, they work for a newspaper that is part of a control system.
And I think I have a small apology in my book where I say I haven't dealt with all of the aspects of the deep state because I wanted very much to look at corporations and the intervening, the level of the public state and the level of the CIA and the NSA.
Up at the very top, you have the corporations and the banks.
And in between those are these consulting firms like Booz Allen Hamilton, which are full of people who come from the CIA and go back to the CIA or go back to industry, come from industry.
They're all interacting.
And this is private intelligence contracting agencies.
Yes, I call them, you know, we have private military corporations, we have private intelligence corporations.
Anyway, I don't say enough about the media because that was going in a slightly different direction, but they.
Part of the deep state, and they have their own, you know.
Ben Begdikian and people have written about how the corporatization of the media that it all focuses in, in the end, on Wall Street and people who are on the boards of the media or on the boards of the big corporations and the banks, and that is the deep state.
The media are as much part of the deep state as, say, Booz Allen Hamilton is part of the deep state.
Yeah, well, you have these major media companies and TV stations in New York, along with the national newspapers there.
Right.
And we have Wall Street right in the middle of all that.
And you're saying they intertwine very closely and are really part of the same mindset.
Yeah, well, you have to be careful.
I'm not saying this to you, I'm saying to myself.
Oh, yeah.
You have to be very careful when you talk about the mindset because you often see conflicts.
I mean, Rupert Murdoch and News Corp and Fox News.
They're on a slightly different path from, say, the New York Times and CBS News.
Right.
And when Rupert Murdoch's family got into some big trouble in England over crimes, the New York Times did a lot to expose that.
So, there isn't exactly a single mindset uniting Rupert Murdoch with the New York Times.
But if somebody's coming from outside and challenging the whole thing, like a Gary Webb audience, Drugs, then they will unite to deal with him, though they don't necessarily unite, and I think sometimes seriously disagree on that.
Should Iran, for example, I think you do find some serious differences.
The PNAC view on what to do in Iran is not, I think, the New York Times view of what to do on Iran.
And this is a very complex and interesting area.
Which I may have to write a second book about or something.
Yeah.
Well, I hope that you do because I think it's important to see that the media doesn't tell us the truth.
You know, too many people take it for granted that they will.
But even when the media is reporting and following up on an important story, we're not getting the whole truth.
You know, they're not really showing us the deeper levels.
Doing it worse, I think somewhere I compare the media performance in the Iraq War with the media performance in the Vietnam War.
The media, you know, is from basically people rather like me.
I mean, all my life I've known journalists, and they're usually rather decent people.
But like bureaucrats, anyone who works for an organization learns either to think the way the organization thinks or to get out.
That's why I got out of government.
I was beginning to think like a bureaucrat, and I could see myself beginning to think as a bureaucrat when I left.
Well, I think there's no question that there's a real danger of being absorbed.
Some very good friends stayed in, and they continued to be my good friends, even though they held to views which I now radically disagreed with.
And journalists are in that situation, and many good journalists have had to leave.
One of the results is that there's now a spectrum between the governing media and people like me.
There are a lot of intermediate figures, like Robert Parry, for example, who broke the story on Contras and drugs.
And he broke a number of other stories, and people who were breaking stories back in that era were squeezed out of the media.
And he now has something called Consortium News, which is an excellent self supporting news agency.
He doesn't agree with me about 9 11, he's blasting people who say that there's a conspiracy behind 9 11.
But so he's in an intermediate position.
I think I'm very glad he's there, and he's been very good on the Ukraine.
And on U.S. Russian relations.
Well, it's interesting.
And this reminds me of someone like Bill Moyers, who plays a very dual role.
You know, because you could say Bill Moyers, on one side of things, was an insider, a special assistant to LBJ, and had a deep connection and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
But he also did some incredible work as a journalist, exposing a lot of political corruption in a special documentary.
And this is quite a while ago now, but it was called The Secret Government.
I was supposed to be a major source for that movie.
The producers told me one week before that I was going to have a big role in that movie.
And when I watched it, there were the things I had said, but somebody else said them.
Oh, isn't that interesting?
I think I'm not really a totally acceptable person to the media.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm happier to be where I am than to be somebody reading somebody else's lines.
No, I understand that.
And since you've mentioned it, actually, I've seen your work plagiarized so often when dealing with covert political reporting and just used in a variety of ways.
I want it to be disseminated.
Yeah, but this is without sourcing it or saying who they're getting it from.
You know, most of the time people don't credit it back to your body of research.
And I'll see it pop up in everything from New York Times articles to, you know, New World Order websites.
And sometimes it's word for word based on your books on deep politics.
Well, I'm not alone.
There are other people like me, and we're all in this situation.
Bill Moyers, for example, he had an excellent show with a man called Wolfgren about the deep state.
Right.
Now, he didn't mention that I used the deep state in 2007, but no, I want the idea to get out there, so I'm quite happy not to be cited.
I know what you mean.
And actually, it is a fascinating thing.
You know, when I saw this guy going around with his book on the deep state, I said, oh, they must be interviewing Professor Scott.
You know, that's the first thing that popped into my head.
But when I watched the shows, he was only talking about Republicans and Democrats and all that, you know, nothing edgy and just a totally different version of the whole thing.
But using the title, the same title from your books.
You know, I'm not against it.
There's a book out almost simultaneously with mine.
A man called Michael Glennon has brought a book out called National Security and Double Government.
He's talking about what I would call the two outer layers of the deep state onion.
He's talking about Congress, the president at one level, and then the CIA, what he calls, I think, the Trumanite network, because he blames Truman for setting these things up.
He doesn't, I guess, take very seriously Truman's claim that he didn't intend what has since happened.
So it's a good book, but he doesn't talk about Wall Street, he doesn't talk about banks, he doesn't talk about drug trafficking.
He's a political scientist.
He's talking about structures.
And in my own book, Michael Lofgren says that the deep state is like an iceberg, and you only see the top level of it that goes way, way down.
And that's a good metaphor in terms of suggesting the sort of size of the problem we're dealing with.
But it's a bad metaphor because the deep state is not a structure, it's not something solid.
Like an iceberg at the end.
Persuasion vs Coercion in History00:05:30
And I distinguish between the structures.
Now, the CIA is a structure, the Congress is a structure.
But when you're talking about Wall Street, it's not a structure in the same sense.
And so I talk there about a system, a solar system, or even better, a weather system.
A weather system, yeah.
A weather system is something you can't precisely say where it stops and where it ends.
But it can be very forceful, and you can have a Hurricane Sandy, and it can be devastating.
Right.
I think we're dealing with forces that are not all structured and are not predictable.
They interact in different ways.
I see.
That's very interesting.
Well, in your new book, you talk about how over time it has come down to two different worldviews, really, with two competing mentalities.
And so, on one side, We have a kind of bottom up democracy versus a top down empire.
Right.
Now, can we talk a little bit about that?
Because it seems to me to be the foundation of the book, really the clash of these two intense forces.
Yes, well, that's a thought that I took from Hannah Arendt.
And actually, to be really honest, I took it from a man called Jonathan Schell, who adapted Hannah Arendt's ideas into a powerful defense of nonviolence and the vision.
That the bottom up powers, the powers of persuasion as opposed to the powers of coercion, are growing.
And in my last chapter, I come back to that theme and say that I believe the wrong.
See, many of my friends here in Berkeley, the left coast, they're very depressed about America.
And I'm not nearly, I'm a Canadian, first of all.
I don't take heart, I don't get as depressed as Americans do when things go wrong in this country because.
Yes, I'm involved and I care deeply, but I'm also part of me sees it a bit from outside.
And looking from outside, I see that America's had this kind of crisis before.
We really are in a period of mania, insanity, right now.
America's gone crazy about terrorism and is responding in ways which are increasing the terrorism.
And some people are very happy to do that because it's intensely profitable to some people.
But America's been in periods of mania before and has rectified itself.
Yes.
Well, what are some of the self perpetuating factors that are keeping America in this off balance state?
We have a very small percentage who are profiting at obscene rates from what's going on right now.
And we have many people say we have a new gilded age, referring to the late 19th century.
But America took care of that, it took a Republican president.
Right.
And after starting with Theodore Roosevelt, Income disparity and wealth disparity in this country began diminishing and diminishing and diminishing, and that was true right up until 1980 and the Reagan Revolution when it started going back very radically in the opposite direction.
Well, I believe that the long term process of history, and this is my idea from Jonathan Schell, that in the long run the forces of persuasion are increasing.
They were nothing to begin with.
History for a long time was not a history of persuasion, it was a history of coercion.
True.
But we've had events in American history recently.
One of them was the anti war movement that essentially, from below, helped, not by itself, of course, but helped persuade America to get out of Vietnam.
A much more inspiring example is the civil rights movement.
Yes.
Essentially, it was a movement of persuasion.
It persuaded whites in the South.
To that, they did not want that it was not in their interest to perpetuate Jim Crow and the prevention of Negroes from voting, it was in their interest to be part of the world as a whole, which disapproved so radically of that situation, right?
So, yes, in the end, um, anyway, that's that's my last chapter that the long trend in history is persuasion.
Dominating, whereas in the short term, it's usually coercion dominating, and right now it is coercion dominating.
But that is self defeating, I think, not permanent.
I see, I see.
It's their short term solution, but you see historically.
It's short term, but it's short term.
Yes, shorter than the other.
Right.
So you're saying historically, America has a chance to turn things around.
America is not, you know, I hear some people saying America is a fascist country.
Short Term Fascist Country Trends00:04:12
No, it's full of people.
I mean, in a fascist country, you and I wouldn't be talking on TV.
That's true.
And it's important that we are very specific when we use terms like that.
I agree 100%.
But on the other hand, we are talking about trends here, like the militarization of the police that you referenced earlier, and the privacy violations we see happening in contracting agencies for intelligence.
So, what do you see are some of the biggest dangers going on, you know, in addition to what we've covered here so far?
Well, I think it's the accumulation of wealth in the hands of very few people.
And so that, particularly since the Supreme Court decision, where money now can turn up anywhere.
And that in the short run, I think we will see this Keystone pipeline, which is a disaster from an environmental point of view.
So, the money problem is so acute that you might say that's a difference between now and the Theodore Roosevelt era that America was able to right itself because there wasn't money concentrated in, say, 100 people or something like that.
I've heard it said, I don't know if it's true or not, but that the richest people in the country all know each other or are in touch with each other.
And if that's true, they.
And they can throw their money, but even so, we're still seeing divisions.
You know, I mean, one of the largest fortunes squandered in the last election was somebody who was spending his own private money, about 60 million of it, to support candidates who were willing to speak truth to power on the question of global warming.
Yeah.
And in the short run, he lost, but he didn't really lose all that money.
It was a step in a process that someday, I mean, either we're going to get smart about global warming.
Or it's the end.
The culture we're in now is not maintainable unless it can readjust its relationship to the forces of nature.
So I can see from what you're saying that you do have a kind of central optimism for America.
And after all, the book is called American Deep State.
So you're speaking specifically about America in there.
Yes.
But the trends that you're seeing in America, like you said before, we're in a kind of mania now.
Right.
And, you know, it's almost like McCarthyism or other stressful periods where the official structure just overreached.
And, you know, another example would be the anti war movement.
Yes, or at 1919 in the Palmer raids, which is a blot on U.S. history, but it ended up with Hoover being told not to do that sort of thing.
Right.
I mean, it's a complex story again, but yes, there are things, the short term.
Reading the paper from day to day, one is rationally, I think, compelled to be a pessimist.
But reading American history in the long run, there's room for hope, not so much for a rational prediction that things will go well, but there's room for a hope that they will go well, a room for faith that America is a much better country than the present government we now have, Democrat or Republican.
And they're going to love this country, which I do.
I mean, I'm here by choice.
I love it.
And unfortunately, they've never deported me.
So I see so much advantage here that we are all, I think, very fortunate to be in this country, which gives us the opportunity to try and change this country.
And that's the whole idea of what America is a project, a way to make the city on the hill.
Church Problems and American Exceptionalism00:07:44
Come into being.
Anyone who says we are the city on the hill is a liar.
But we have the chance to become it.
Yes, I think America, I say in one place that I'm an exceptionalist as a Canadian.
I see America as being exceptionalist.
I think it was exceptional when it created the Constitution, which was a beam of light to Europe and other parts of the world.
And we're exceptional now in the number of prisoners we have in our jails.
Number of people below the poverty line.
I mean, it's a bad moment in otherwise generally noble, if imperfect, history.
Definitely.
I can appreciate that.
There's no question that greatness lies in our power if we can start to take control of these institutions that really need to be answerable to people and also expose these deep state forces that are usurping the public interest.
Right.
Well, Professor, moving into our final segment, and it's just extraordinary what you shared here today.
I noticed that you started the American Deep State book with a fantastic quote.
By Frank Church.
Yes.
Of course, Church was the senator from Idaho who challenged the intelligence services and formed the Church Committee to look into their activities in the 70s.
I was curious why you chose him and this particular powerful quote.
So let's play the quote first, and then when we come back, you can tell me why you chose it.
Yeah.
I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency, the National Security Agency, and all agencies that possess this technology, Operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.
That is the abyss from which there is no return.
Well, you know, when I come back to deal with church in the body of the book, it's in a context of what I see was a very important period in American history between 1960 and 1980,
or more narrowly, between the Kennedy assassination and the The efforts, successful efforts of ex CIA agents to prevent the reelection of Jimmy Carter.
Frank Church represented a kind of threat to the deep state at that time because America was in chaos, really chaos, as a result of the Vietnam War, student protests, black riots in the ghettos.
And then we have Watergate, and in the shambles after Watergate, it was unclear what direction America would go in.
After the Vietnam War, would we reduce the defense budget and go back to the kind of civilian economy we had before, or would we alternatively move to an extended military economy and just offshore the manufacturing that used to be done domestically?
And you could say that Frank Church represented the best hopes in Congress to go in the direction by exposing things that, when I say the deep state, I mean, of course, the CIA, the FBI.
He never, I think, wrote very much about the NSA, but he did look at it and he was very alarmed by what he saw.
And Congress, he brought in legislation to Congress, some of which is very relevant now, like the National Emergencies Act, which said, If the president proclaims an emergency, Congress has to review it within six months.
Well, after 9 11, the president did proclaim an emergency, and that was 14 years ago, and Congress has never renewed it.
Right.
Anyway, Church saw the problems and he offered a solution.
And I sincerely believe that if Carter had been reelected, there was a good chance that there would have been more legislation.
But that didn't happen.
Because elements of the deep state, and specifically in my book, I named the oil companies together with the so called October surprise counterplot of the Republicans, which involved not just ex CIA agents but also people from Israel and from Iran.
And so, what happened at the end of those two decades is that the deep state.
Having been challenged by Church and others, it emerged actually because there was a struggle at that time, and essentially the deep state won the struggle.
So, starting with the Reagan Revolution, it's the thesis of my book that the deep state has been in a much more powerful position than before.
And if we're talking something like the Kennedy assassination, that was a deep state act against the public state.
But since the Reagan Revolution, The deep state has been so ensconced in the public state that you haven't seen those kind of tensions between them that we saw so vividly between 1960 and 1980.
Yes, and that's very compelling.
One of the things you point out is that the presidency itself got into major problems when the deep state got the upper hand after the JFK assassination, and that the presidency didn't really regain its footing until Reagan was elected in 1980 and the deep state was finally at peace to have Reagan in there.
Exactly.
I mean, if we look at the fates of presidents, Kennedy was assassinated.
Johnson was going to run for a second term, and then he was having so much trouble with the military that he didn't.
Nixon was elected for two terms, but he had to resign.
And that was, I believe, Watergate has never yet been fully understood that it was essentially a right wing plot against Nixon preparing.
For the Reagan Revolution.
And then you had Carter, and he was.
No, I'm sorry, I forgot about Ford.
Ford, yeah.
He was defeated, an incumbent president was defeated, the first one since Hoover in 1932, and Carter became the second incumbent to be defeated.
So it was a bad time for the presidency and for the country.
I mean, it wasn't all the deep state, there were problems.
I mean, losing a war.
Is a traumatic event.
I mean, in France, it was the end of the Fourth Republic, so we didn't have anything quite as violent as that.
We had cultural shocks from all of the confusion at that time, which have changed the country, and some of those changes were fully implemented until 9 11.
But we are now in a different country from where we were in the 50s.
That's definitely true, and I think the direction we're heading in now is not too promising, not currently anyway.
MG Car and Palo Alto Meeting00:02:42
Finally, Professor, I was hoping to have you share this very interesting personal anecdote of a strange incident that happened to you and Alfred McCoy, also a great author.
Yes.
And so I believe this takes place in the 70s, and someone had called you and informed you that they had something very special, some special information they wanted to share with you.
Actually, I called them.
Okay.
Yes.
This is the opening of the American War Machine.
Yes.
It is a personal anecdote, and it's a deep event, but a very small one.
Right.
Al McCoy and I both came out with books mentioning the CIA and the drug traffic in 1972.
My book was a book that you could not find in bookstores, and his book became very much.
Both of us actually got some help from people in the CIA.
But what happened here was I had gone to a winter soldier hearing earlier, or about a few months earlier.
And heard somebody talk about loading bales or watching bales of opium being loaded onto Air America planes, CIA planes.
And when Al came out, he went to Laos and did magnificent work.
I mean, his book had a lot of stuff in it, way beyond mine.
On his way to Laos, he stayed with me here in Berkeley.
I had the number of the man who had talked about seeing these bales of opium being loaded on a plane.
And I said, Would you be willing to talk to the two of us tomorrow?
And he said, Sure.
He was in Palo Alto, not far away.
So we had that phone call.
And as far as I know, there had never been any thought of this happening until Al came out and I suggested it and I made the phone call.
And then the next morning we got in the car, we drove to Palo Alto.
And as I remember it, and by the way, I completely forgot about this, so I'll come back to that.
But as I now recall it, we went up the stairs, knocked on his door, and he came out like this, motioning to be silent, and then pointing down the stairs, we went back down the stairs, we came to his red MG.
And there was a hole this big in the steel door of his.
Suppressed Memories and Red MG00:02:39
MG, like this.
And then he pointed to the floor in his MG, which was wood.
And he said, Now he's talking, he's got away from his house, and he says, Look at the floor, it is barely scorched.
He said, That had to be an implosion device set by some of the people in my old unit.
So, what does this mean?
This means that somebody overheard our phone conversation, and it ended up with somebody.
Blowing a hole in his door in order to terrorize him into not talking because he wouldn't say a word to us because he had been given the message.
Now, the real reason I tell that story is not just to say that there's an interaction between people who listen to phone calls and people who blow holes in doors, but that the reaction of Al and me.
I was writing about what's wrong with this country.
I didn't remember that memory.
Completely suppressed that memory because it was just too big to fit with everything else in my mind.
And I didn't recover it until about 20 years later, I was writing a poem called Coming to Jakarta, which is the subtitle of which appropriately is a poem about terror.
And without getting into the subject matter of too much of the thing, I was recovering memories that I had suppressed.
And I realized that we all live by suppressing memories.
That's how we stay sane because there's so much in the world that would drive us insane if we took it seriously.
Just the poverty of people in this country, for instance.
We don't really keep that in our minds.
It's an intolerable situation.
Well, I recovered the memory myself by writing the poem.
The next time I saw Al, I asked him about it to see if he had suppressed it.
And as I was pretty sure, he had suppressed it too.
And to this day, his memory, the latest edition of his masterpiece book, The politics of heroin deals with this episode by quoting my poem.
Wow, wow.
That's the way of dealing with it.
And so, that this fact of there are things we repress that we have to recover.
Corporation Surveillance and Repression00:06:03
That's why I began by saying that yes, deep politics is the product of a system of society which is so unjust that we repress a great deal of what's going on.
And the process towards a more healthy, open society will be to recover the repressed memories that will undo some of the products of that repression, like the state of emergency we're in right now, for example, to bring it up to the present.
So I think that's the anecdote you wanted, and that's why I think it is a really sort of, it represents in a small way, because it was a deep event, I don't understand it fully.
I don't know.
I don't think it was the CIA.
Remember, I said the CIA was actually giving us information because it was 1971 the year that Nixon is about to recognize and go to Beijing and lead to a normalization in China, and that will mean cutting connections to the Kuomintang drug traffickers in Southeast Asia.
But somebody didn't like what?
Is going on.
Amazing.
That's just so off the charts and really shows you how these people operate.
Now, you've had to endure a fair amount of surveillance also for dealing with these sensitive political subjects.
I was then.
They didn't make a secret of it then.
I think I still am, but they're more sophisticated now.
Sure.
I actually have had, there was a case where an email with some sensitive material disappeared out of my mailbox.
In my computer simultaneously with the email I'd sent to somebody else.
That's how I learned because it disappeared from his mailbox.
He asked me about it and I said, I'll give it to you again.
I went and was gone from my mailbox.
That's a pretty tiny thing.
I mean, I don't feel oppressed by that.
And you've shared the information at this point.
So the books are out there.
They know what you're about.
I want the surveillance.
I've always said this.
I want them to know what I'm doing because I'm nonviolent.
Yes.
If I became a citizen, I would swear not to overthrow the government by violence, and I would probably also swear to try to overthrow it by nonviolence.
But I'm not going to become a citizen, so it's not relevant.
But I want them to know.
I want the CIA and the FBI and the government to know.
I'm not happy about having a private intelligence corporation do surveillance on me, SAIC, for example, because for them there's a profit motive.
If they say this man is dangerous and we need to up the surveillance on him, It's profitable for them, so that's going to contaminate their reporting on me.
But if it's the FBI and the CIA, go ahead.
I read my computer.
There's nothing in there that will get me arrested, I think.
It's interesting that you mentioned a private intelligence corporation doing surveillance.
You know, my mind jumps to Blackwater, which is called Academy now with an I at the end.
Of course, we use those guys a lot in Iraq.
And even though they got into a lot of trouble when their people were just out of control over there, but Obama still contracts with them for hundreds of millions of dollars.
But you've done a lot of research that's very intriguing on their founder and his family connections.
Do you recall this?
Oh, yes.
Eric Prince, we're talking about.
Right.
He comes from a staunchly Republican family.
He married into another staunchly Republican family.
And I think it was his wife's family.
Some member of it boasted that they had given more money to the Republican Party than any other family.
So, what this really meant was by outsourcing.
Government money to Blackwater, you were generating profits which then came back in to reinforce the mindset that wants to have lots of government operations overseas.
So that's the danger of this.
I see, I see, yeah.
You know, the military industrial complex, when Eisenhower wrote about it, it was important, but it wasn't the dominant economy.
He wrote it.
With, I'm sure, the encouragement of people from the civilian economy who shared this concern that the military economy was eroding and corrupting the civilian economy.
And look what's happened.
Now, all of our manufacturing, virtually the old manufacturing, has gone overseas.
And the people who are architects of that were people who are part of this story of the deep state that I'm talking about.
Yeah.
But it was still a competition.
Now it's not a competition.
Now we are a militarized economy.
And to fight our way out of that is not going to be easy.
But luckily, we still are incredibly rich in this country with innovators.
And, you know, I'm on the edge of it here in Berkeley.
Across the bay is Silicon Valley and Stanford.
Oh, yeah.
We have to draw on all that kind of energy.
And apply it to not to the problem of tracking down poor, impoverished Muslims in the northwest provinces of Pakistan, apply it to the problem of global warming and alternative energy.
Film Clips Taken Globally00:02:06
Yes, well, you make a great point that we need to use these advances in technology to make a better world and not misuse this kind of opportunity.
Yes.
And that's what's so great about your new book, because it really is the culmination of all your fearless investigating over the years with all that incredible research that you've done.
And on that note, I wanted to tell you that I found a clip of you interviewing Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry on the grassy knoll.
Now, this is a classic clip from the 70s, and you were asking him about what happened there.
He was in charge of the JFK investigation originally.
Yes, he was in the car.
Right.
So we're going to play that clip, but first, I wanted to ask you if you remember that day and interviewing him.
Well, I have to respond two ways.
First of all, you never let me, you don't give me time to say you're exaggerating when you say things like that, but I'm not very.
Fearless, no.
I do fairly safe things.
And I just want to comment about that camera that took that interview.
It was a camera from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Or, no, excuse me, the National Film Board.
Oh, yeah.
Because, again, no American network would have allowed that sort of thing.
It showed on Canadian television and actually showed the.
I don't know what parts of the show were taken up, but parts of the show were shown in Britain, France, Germany.
Yeah.
All over the world, except of course in the United States.
Unbelievable.
A public broadcasting station took an option on the show and sat on it forever.
And so America was the one country which was not allowed to see that film of Peace Chief Curry.
Oh, that's fascinating.
Well, let's see what they were trying to hide.
Here's the clip of you and Chief Curry.
Here we go.
First off, approximately right along here.
I was saying, you didn't look back.
At that point, no, I left it in a rear view mirror.
Bombshell Evidence of Another Assassin00:02:57
I see.
You've seen the uh, the superhero film that was taken from up this hill, and there's a very distinct head snap where the president had his head backwards.
Doesn't that suggest that the shot would have come from well, it would appear to be so?
And uh, at the say, we also have Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital saying that he examined the wound in the president's throat and it was an entrance wound, yes, which would also suggest.
That the shot had come from the front.
I'm not saying the shot was not fired from here.
I'm saying we never found anybody that we could connect with.
But it does suggest that the evidence that we have, in both cases, is really strong evidence that there was another assassin involved.
That's right.
That's amazing history there.
Well, Professor, thank you.
It's been a pleasure having you on the show today.
And the new book is The American Deep State.
I can't recommend it enough.
It ties all the elements together from Wall Street to big oil.
And all the political fallout from this deep state influence.
Well, I appreciate that you know enough about these things to ask the right questions, so I thank you.
Thank you.
And can I also have you give out your website address for people who are looking for more information?
I do have a website, peterdalescott.net, and I do have a Facebook page.
I think I'm peterdotd.scott9.
And if anyone is listening, they can either go to those sources or maybe even a couple of them might want to buy the book.
Yes, and it's available on Amazon and at major booksellers.
And I know we're lucky to have this new book because you had said, I think, that you may not do another book.
Right.
But somehow you put together The American Deep State, and it's your best one yet.
Well, let me confess something.
With this book, which took five years to write, I promise my wife, this is absolutely my last political book.
And I have to confess to you and all your audience something she doesn't know yet.
Yesterday, I sent off the outline for another political book.
Oh, bombshell.
That's fantastic.
Well, you heard it here first, everyone.
Professor Scott is back, and we'll have a new book in the works, which is great news.
And we're looking forward to it and all you have to share.
Of course, it's a great inspiration.
And we thank your wife also.
Professor, amazing interview and book.
Great job.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for joining me for this special episode with Professor Peter Dale Scott.
On the Deep State, CIA, Secret Government, and the Doomsday Network.
You can find more special reports, interviews, and documentaries at www.darkjournalists.com.
You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel for the latest videos.