UC Berkeley professor Peter Dale Scott defines the "deep state" as covert political forces manipulating mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post to discredit intelligence agency leaks. He details historical "deep events," including the JFK assassination, the Gary Webb investigation, and the 1975 "Halloween Massacre" where Rumsfeld and Cheney fired CIA Director William Colby to justify military buildup. Scott argues that while outlets like Breitbart expose these extra-legal maneuvers, the current deep state is fracturing between Trump opponents and allies, with media framing conflicts as rule-of-law issues rather than covert political warfare. [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
Dark Journalist Goes For Truth00:04:22
Hi, this is Dark Journalist.
Today I have a very special episode for you.
We'll be joined by deep politics author and UC Berkeley professor Peter Dale Scott.
Now, Professor Scott's latest book, The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy, is a fascinating analysis of hidden political forces that wield a tremendous influence in our modern society.
Now, Professor Scott coined the term the deep state along with his signature studies in deep politics and deep events.
We've been hearing a lot about the deep state lately from the mainstream media.
But it turns out they're trying to discredit its core meaning.
That there's a deep political system that operates outside of the control of the public state.
Are these hidden dark forces calling the shots on everything from our foreign policy to who should occupy the White House?
Here we go UC Berkeley professor Peter Dale Scott, the deep state CIA media matrix.
Don't get the idea that the mainstream media are real media.
For years, we've had fake news from the mainstream media.
Because of the CIA Wall Street connection, outway agencies who are the deep state are, through the media, assuring America that the deep state does not exist.
You know, whenever I've investigated major political cover ups, I've always kept in mind Professor Scott's idea of a deep state operating underneath the public state of our democratic republic.
Events spanning from the JFK assassination, Iran Contra, 9 11, and even the 2008 Wall Street financial coup d'etat have shown the outline of the goals and strategies of these deep state political operators.
But the wall of secrecy that they've erected to keep all of this hidden has sometimes made it difficult to identify exactly who they are.
Does the deep state exist and have a tremendous impact on our political life here in America and around the world?
Let's go ask Professor Peter Dale Scott.
Dark Journalist.
Go for Truth in 2017.
The deepest questions, the biggest secrets, the darkest mysteries.
Dark Journalist.
Go for Truth.
With top guests like Graham Hancock.
Graham, how do we as a society escape the grip of the deep state in the 21st century?
Rather than spending trillions of dollars every year on building up our armies and our weapons of mass destruction and creating a climate of hatred and fear and suspicion, we should be uniting as a human race.
Catherine Austin Fitz.
Catherine, what is the issue that's holding us?
Back and destroying prosperity.
We have a system which has got a negative return on investment, it's killing human productivity, and where it's going is inhuman.
Linda Moulton Howe.
Linda, you've been fighting against secrecy your whole life.
How are we doing in this battle?
There is a kind of energy and synergy that you and I have because we are both trying so hard in so many facets to get to the bottom of what is the truth.
Dark journalist, go for truth.
Visit darkjournalist.com and subscribe now for a special winter discount available for just $39 for one full year.
You'll receive exclusive member benefits, including access to the complete high quality audio archives to stream or download at your convenience, and subscriber only content, including bonus show material.
Sign up for our free newsletter to stay updated on the latest shows.
Dark Journalist, this is the year, now is the time.
You know, we need dark journalists, so just keep doing what you're doing.
Join us now and go for truth.
Well, hello everyone.
I'm super excited as we see the intelligence community going all out against the White House and against alternative media too.
And you know, we've done many shows on the deep state here on this show.
Well, today's guest not only coined the term to refer to a deep political system operating outside of the Constitution, but he's here just as we see the mainstream media using his deep state term only to try and debunk the very idea that there is one.
Now, it must be nice after all these years of avoiding naming him or his work that now it's all they can do to talk about it.
Media Control And Fake News00:07:43
If only to discredit it.
Now, today, Professor Scott will set the record straight and a quick reminder here to sign up for our newsletter at darkjournalist.com so you don't miss any of the exciting shows we have coming up for you.
Professor, it's great to have you back with us.
Now, we have so much to cover in terms of the media's newfound fascination with your term, the deep state, and the CIA's efforts to destabilize the White House, along with the media's kind of insistent over the top rhetoric against alternative coverage by branding everyone.
But themselves really as fake news.
But since you've done so much on deep politics over the last 50 years, I wanted to start off with a classic quote of yours that really resonates today, and especially in light of the situation that we find ourselves in.
You said, For a half century, American politics has been constrained and deformed by the unresolved matter of the Kennedy assassination.
And here we are now, basically 50 years later, with a major split in the deep state and the CIA at odds once again with the White House.
How do you feel about the situation and the currents that have developed between the deep state and the public state over the past 50 years?
Right.
Well, let me say two things about my statement.
First of all, it means that we've never had a proper investigation of the Kennedy assassination.
We had one, the Warren Commission, that was totally dominated by all inside accounts by Alan Dulles, who was the most important person to be fired.
By John F. Kennedy.
And so they produced what was clearly a very inadequate report, full of information.
But you know that they had decided at their first meeting, they came up with a plan of what the report would look at.
And the first chapter said Oswald is the lone assassin.
That was filling out an agenda.
So we don't know that.
But even worse, because from time to time the media began to reopen the case, the CIA got into the habit of summoning its assets.
They did this in 67 with the Garrison investigation.
The CIA went into full gear to make sure that the CIA wasn't mentioned in that investigation.
So they summoned the CIA assets, and there was a job done to destroy Garrison and the mainstream media.
So I didn't like Garrison, but I didn't like the fact that the CIA was summoning the mainstream media to assassinate him.
No question.
And in Garrison's case, he'd worked out their Oswald connection, so they really went after him.
And it was much worse.
In the 1990s, Gary Webb does a series of, this is by the way, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist writes for the San Jose Mercury a series of articles where he's talking about the CIA and the Contras in Nicaragua and the crack cocaine epidemic.
It's a flawed series.
He doesn't get every detail right.
But it's on a very important topic, and he deserved to be taken seriously.
But no, he became designated as a target for the mainstream media to destroy.
And you got the same triumvirate of papers the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the LA Times.
And by the way, very good journalists Tim Weiner in the New York Times has since written a very good book about the CIA, Doyle McManus.
In the LA Times, who also wrote a very good book called Landslide.
By the way, he co wrote it with Jane Mayer.
I can't say anything bad about Jane Mayer.
She's written the dark, she's written two good series about American politics The Dark Side and then Dark Money.
Excellent.
Doral McManus' book, Landslide, written with her.
Excellent.
But the series he did against, it was a whole team, I think there were 17 people.
On the team, and I think that according to the company of journalism review, Peter Kornblue says that they call themselves the Get Web Team.
Wow.
And they so destroyed Gary Webb that he lost his job, and he was unemployed, and he was penniless, and he committed suicide.
Yes, well, it's a compelling example of what these covert forces will do and the power that they have over the media.
Now, there were certainly irregularities to Webb's suicide.
And some conflicting reports that there may have been foul play involved.
How do you feel about that?
You know, some people suspect that he was murdered.
I don't for a moment suspect he was murdered, but I do suspect that his character was assassinated by the mainstream media, and it was totally unjustified.
It was bad.
That's what I mean about how things have gone wrong since the Kennedy assassination.
The CIA should not be in that kind of business at all.
Right.
In a way, they always work as they would plant stories abroad, which then would come back here into this country.
I think the CIA's job should be to learn what is true, not to plant what are lies.
Because if we want to talk about the history of fake news in this country, it's going to be an honest history of that, it's going to be a history in which the CIA looms very large.
For the best of motives at the beginning, I don't know, but we should not be subverting governments, we should not be planting false stories.
You know, a very early stage, I think, was planting true stories and floating them in balloons that float from west to east in Europe and they went behind the Iron Curtain.
That was the beginning of the descent into fake news, which is a major problem today.
So, oh, yeah.
It's a longer answer than you wanted to your question, but that's what I meant.
Oh, absolutely.
And I can understand and appreciate the context that you're giving it there.
As we take kind of a wide angle look at these subjects that you've covered for more than four decades.
Now, one thing I find fascinating when I look at the situation and the heavy efforts that the media is making now to control the political narrative, and we have to remember that this was the same media establishment that lied about the JFK assassination back then.
And ever since, we've really seen the media kind of obscure the truth and work hand in glove with the CIA, you know, playing this influence game back and forth.
And now suddenly they're highlighting this deep state term that is so identified with your work and really shrinking it down so it's almost unrecognizable or denying in some cases that it even exists.
Now, your deep state is very different from their deep state.
There's no doubt about that.
So, for the record, here, can you read us the description that you have in the opening of your latest book about the deep state?
CIA Influence On The Press00:15:38
I quoted a British definition as the embedded anti democratic power structures.
Within a government, something very few democracies can claim to be free from.
And I think that's a good starting point, but because of the CIA and Wall Street connection, I think you have to look behind those structures that are embedded in Washington or on the margins of Washington and think of why they're there.
And it was Alan Dulles, right after World War II, who was actually designated to draft.
A charter for a CIA, and he was doing all this while he was still a lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell.
And eventually, as the CIA expanded and they created something much less remembered but more important, which was the Office of, oh, help me here.
It's the Office of Policy Coordination.
The Office of Policy Coordination.
Yeah.
It's such a polite little name, really.
Right.
What does that mean?
Nothing at all, really.
But in fact, All of the covert operations that we associate now with the CIA didn't begin inside the CIA.
They began with something that was created by the White House to deal with the original problem presented by the Italian elections in 1948.
The Russians were putting money behind the Communist Party.
And so a decision was made, actually made at Wall Street, that we should back, America should back the other parties.
And that was done by the CIA, but they felt this wasn't really what the CIA was set up to do.
So, the next summer of 1948, they created the Office of Policy Coordination, and that very quickly became very huge and very dirty, working with the mafia in France to beat the communist trade unions there.
And eventually it got so out of control, they said, Well, we have to get this under control.
That's when Alan Dulles went to Washington, took a job in the CIA to bring in The old OPC, Office of Policy Coordination, which then became the CIA's Department of Plans and later Department of Operations.
And that's the CIA that most people think about, but it began outside the CIA, was supposed to be brought in to be controlled, but I think more of the reverse happened.
I think that the OPC people became the dominant people, and the poor.
And the intelligence analysts, a lot of them have left the agency as refugees, people like Ray McGovern, very good people who were trying to do very good intelligence, but whose intelligence was increasingly overridden because they didn't fit with the projects that people had.
That was particularly the case with Casey.
I would say when Casey became a CIA director, that was the triumph of the The covert operations mentality over the gathering of intelligence in the CIA.
And that is, if we're talking about in practical terms why we're talking about the deep state and headlines day after day after day now, it is those beltway agencies and probably the CIA in particular.
Yeah, well, since Trump became the Republican nominee and he wasn't really heavily favored to do that, and then he went on to win the election, which all the media was saying he couldn't do.
And the CIA didn't like that very much.
And during the time he was president elect, and of course now president, there's been leak after CIA leak.
So they really are stepping out of the shadows here and letting their disdain for Trump be known.
Now, the leaks are aimed at President Trump in an almost unprecedented fashion.
And it really feels like the CIA and the media are just, you know, working so tightly together.
They're in such collusion on this one.
The whole Russia Trump fantasy that they have going on, which they haven't really produced any good evidence on at all.
So I guess at this point, they're really not worried about looking too obvious in what they're doing.
I would say that it's very, very normal for people in Washington to leak.
And it's, you know, if somebody irritates them, like Edward Snowden, and does the same thing, well, he's a traitor because he's no longer in the government.
He's a traitor.
But he was doing it in the public interest.
And now, here you have all these people in the CIA who are leaking things.
And they're also being defended by the media, but they're doing it in the public interest.
They haven't actually defined to me very clearly why what they do is okay and what Edward Snowden did was not okay, although nobody has ever accused Snowden of doing it for money or for power or anything like that.
He's wrecked his life.
He did it because he thought that.
The American people should know they were being spied on in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Right.
Anyway, we're not here to talk about Snowden, but my point is that this leakage is normal, and what is abnormal right now is that they're leaking things about the president.
Usually the president and the CIA are on the same page, but Trump campaigned against Washington.
He said he was going to drain the swamp in Washington, and Steve Bannon has since said he wants to deconstruct.
The administration, administrative agencies, so they're fighting back.
And that is, they're fighting the president.
And that has suddenly, it really started more on the Trump side, I think.
Trump supporters, Trump hasn't used the term, but some of his, Roger Stone, some of his supporters have used the term and said that Trump is battling the deep state.
And so the press, in an extraordinary way, Suddenly, the deep state has become something you expect to see in the headline almost every single day.
Now, is that at all surreal for you?
Well, I mean, I've always seen the deep state there, but yes, to see it being mentioned is surprising for me.
It actually, you know, the New York Times back in 2010 said they had a news story on the The memes, the things talked about in 2000, the new memes.
And one of them they said was the deep state.
But you see, that wasn't talking about America.
Right.
We had Mubarak being forced from power in Egypt, and the Arab Spring was going on.
So they could sort of look at a deep state operating in other countries, but not here.
Now, in one of your books, Cocaine Politics, you do talk about this relationship between the media and the CIA.
And you had a term in there, packed journalism, that I think we should really get into right here.
The CIA inspired stories to deny that the CIA had anything with drugs.
And we actually now have the documents where the CIA said they had to contact their assets in the media, which the document admitted that they have.
And we don't have a document saying the same thing about what's going on now.
But when you see the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the LA Times, all of them, even on the same day, Saying that there isn't a deep state in America,
then I take that as a kind of evidence that there is a deep state in evidence because these people are being inspired to do what they're doing, or let's say they're doing a favor for the CIA because the CIA does so many favors for them, makes them important journalists because they are the people who receive the big leaks about what's going on in Washington.
Which can really make a journalist's career.
Absolutely, yeah.
Or, you know, it's a complicated story and it's not as corrupt as it sounds because, I mean, a journalist who I think has done some many, many good things is Seymour Hirsch.
Oh, yeah.
And he began as a very authentic, real man with a cause because he came back from Vietnam.
He knew about Mi Lai.
The Times ran his story on Mi Lai and he became.
At that point, a major journalist.
And since then, he's written many, many very interesting stories that depend on leaks.
And it's quite obvious he's getting leaks from people inside the government.
And I would say sometimes it's pretty obvious they're coming from people inside the CIA.
And that doesn't mean that we should disbelieve everything he says.
On the contrary, he's done some excellent articles, some of them so good they can't be printed in this country.
And he has to publish them in the London Review of Books.
I counsel viewers here to, if they want to know what's going on, you have to look at the media in Canada, Australia, and Britain.
If your language is restricted to English, you can be helped there.
And some of Cy Hirsch's best stories came out in the London Review of Books.
They were just too hot for this country.
But the same Cy Hirsch also wrote a book about Kennedy called.
Something about Camelot, I don't even remember the title exactly.
I thought it was a junk book.
And I think he wrote it as a favor.
I think he wrote it because the CIA, you know, it's no secret that Kennedy was furious at the CIA after the Bay of Pigs.
And he's quoted by people in his administration that he wanted to destroy it into a thousand pieces.
And then he was killed.
And that's a very sensitive area that the media.
Don't want to go into.
Well, the book that you mentioned by Seymour Hirsch was really almost like tabloid material.
So I was shocked too because, like you said, he's usually a very good and thorough writer.
The dark side of Camelot.
The dark side of Camelot.
That's the one.
I do remember thinking it was exploitive.
And now one could think Hirsch, you know, loaded with covert contacts, would go into the JFK assassination and really shake up the establishment with the facts and expose the major links between the CIA and the assassination.
And instead, He went into a whole other direction.
That is just strangely inconsistent, somehow.
Seymour Hirsch's first book, as I recall, was called The Price of Power.
It was an analysis of the Kissinger era.
And it was an excellent book.
Probably, maybe, the best book he ever wrote.
But I'm a good friend of Daniel Ellsberg, who's a good friend of Cy Hirsch.
And Daniel Ellsberg tells me that Cy Hirsch.
Put a lot of work into that book and got very little money for it and realized that writing excellent books doesn't pay.
Yeah.
So he may have made more money with the junk book.
Oh, yes.
Well, this is the downside of the money driven media system that we're seeing.
He is a good journalist and he wrote an excellent book.
He's very smart.
Another not so admirable case, I would say, would be Woodward.
Bob Woodward.
Of Woodward and Bernstein and all the president's men.
He came from an intelligence background, and I think that his whole role in Watergate was not that of a disinterested journalist.
He was part of an effort, first of all, I think, to contain Nixon, who, because you know, what we're going through now was a bit like what was happening then.
Right.
Starting in the second, starting in 70 71, and a lot of things that happened then.
That were written about in the media, the media weren't just reporting, the media were playing politics.
And that doesn't mean I condemn them because Nixon's politics, I think, needed restraint.
And I think initially that's what they were doing.
And at a certain point, I think it became more than that.
It was to bring Nixon down because he was out of control.
And I think Woodward played a role in that.
And I think that Woodward, after that, would.
Brought out a book, usually a best selling book, because they weren't very good, year after year after year, and those books were so obviously based on leaks.
So he was that kind of journalist, but you have to be discriminating here because I would say that Cy Hirsch, the search for the truth, has remained more or less his dominant characteristic, whereas I think after a while Woodward was, it was a kind of Woodward industry.
He was making He really made money with all those books.
And I have to read them because if you want to understand Washington, the leaks in those books were important and some of them were true.
Some of them, sometimes, I mean, I've done some critical analyses of his books.
Some of them contained leaks that were not true.
Didn't mean that Woodward is the liar, it meant that Woodward was repeating something that he was told that was a lie.
Well, this is a really excellent point because, as we've discussed here, the CIA has enormous influence on the media, and people inside the media feel that they can get the real exclusive because the CIA is on the ground in so many of these problem situations.
The only issue is the CIA is great at lying and creating false narratives that the press then picks up thinking they have this exclusive information, and then they repeat it across all these different formats.
Woodward Leaks And Lies00:08:23
So that really is control of the media.
It's interesting because you can sort of guess who's lying, and then you start.
Sometimes a lie is useful because if they're lying, that's an area that they're lying about, and you zero in on that area.
Yeah, I can appreciate that.
And it's interesting that you pointed out that Nixon was seen as getting out of control, and of course, the deep state played a major role in taking him down with the events at Watergate.
As we know, you spent a great deal of time in your work.
On how that led to the rise of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in the Ford administration.
Now, you've done all this work on the deep state versus the presidency, and you even have a book called Dallas 63 The First Deep State Revolt Against the Presidency, which is an excellent book.
Can we say then that Nixon was the second action of the deep state against the presidency?
I want to be careful about it.
It's certainly the next big one.
Okay.
I have a whole chapter about how.
It was a bad time to be a president between 1960 and 1980 because not one of them could fulfill a second term.
Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson had to pull out, Nixon had to resign, Ford was defeated, and Carter in particular.
He had the October surprise.
That was a deep event that deserves to be talked about in great length because it definitely involved people.
Ex CIA people, and some people say active CIA people.
And of course, for the first time in this show, I'm going to mention big oil.
Okay.
Very big part of Carter being defeated in 1980 because the story was that the change of power in Iran had cut off Iran oil exports, which was a lie.
And Big Oil, the big seven sisters, we used to call them then, we call them now Exxon.
They all have different names now Exxon, BP, and so on.
But they were importing the Iranian oil.
They were refining it in Texas, and we were having an acute gas crisis in this country where people had to queue up at the gas stations and get gas.
Big oil was refining the oil in Texas and exporting it to Europe where they could get a better price for it.
Wow, and that's what defeated Carter.
How often would you read that in the newspapers?
It's not at all obvious.
There was a book about it which I quote in this book.
One more time.
If you read about it, I have an account of that.
There's a journalist called Robert Parry who's done an excellent job of exposing the October surprise on the political side.
But Bob Parry, who doesn't like conspiracies, and he has, I once co authored an article with him, so he liked me at one time.
But he then really trashed anybody who was so stupid who would talk about a conspiracy behind 9 11.
Down I go.
That's all.
One of those red conspiracy theorists.
That is unbelievable.
He wouldn't plug me, but I'm plugging him.
I'm definitely plugging him.
Read what he has to say about the October surprise.
But he really should also look at a conspiracy book, at what Big Oil did in 1970, because I'm citing Robert Sherrill, but he gives a very detailed picture of what happened at that time.
Now, the deep state will cross over into the public state to initiate what you call deep events.
And certainly, we've discussed some of them here the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, Iran Contra, 9 11.
These are all what you term deep events.
But the deep state can also operate on a more subtle level.
So, can you give us a little bit about that here?
You know, sometimes you have little deep events that most people don't even notice.
And one of those would be the Saturday, the Halloween massacre.
People remember, the older people remember the Saturday night massacre which happened under Nixon.
I'm talking about the Halloween massacre of October 31st, 1975.
And you know, probably a lot of people watching the show never heard of it.
That was under Ford.
And Ford may have condoned it because it was trying to help restore his popularity.
He was going way down in the polls.
But it was a very important series of events all on the same night.
The head of the CIA was fired, William Colby, replaced by a relatively unknown man called George H.W. Bush, who then went on to authorize something that Colby had refused to authorize the Team B report, Team B to recalculate the Soviet threat.
And who was predetermined they were going to find it was much bigger than the professional analysts like Ray McGovern, who I mentioned.
They said Russia's not less of a threat now than it used to be.
Oh, that was terrible news for the industrial complex.
So the Team B came in and said, Oh, no, no, no, it's much more of a threat than it used to be.
And that's why we got this huge military buildup under, it started actually under Carter, but we think of it as the Reagan buildup.
And that, of course, is a major factor in having ended the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union tried to match it with a weaker economy.
And that arms race, which was not about threats but was about fighting economic war, that was an arms race which you could say the Soviet Union lost because they couldn't keep it up.
Their economy went more and more downhill because they were deflecting.
Resources away from vital domestic functions.
But all right, I'm really trying to talk here about the Halloween massacre.
Right, and how this was a little deep event, but certainly significant in terms of how it changed the government.
So, what would we say then were the historical ramifications of this?
Just the change in the CIA was a major historical event, but it wasn't very visible.
The second thing that happened was they fired Jim Schlesinger as Secretary of Defense.
Right, so they got rid of him and they got rid of Colby at CIA.
Now, Colby, as we'll recall, later would drown under unusual circumstances, sort of in the lake off his boat, and apparently was a great swimmer, but maybe too many secrets going on there.
So they got rid of the defense secretary and the CIA director all on the same day, which is pretty major.
But who is it again that is behind the Halloween massacre?
There in 1975.
It was being done by his chief of staff and his assistant, who are two names barely known then but quite famous since.
Chief of staff was Donald Rumsfeld, and the assistant was Dick Cheney.
And that was the first real intrusion of the Rumsfeld Cheney team into American politics.
And they became the real heart of what I consider the deep state.
Roots Of The Deep State00:02:50
In the 1980s, when they were planning for continuity of government, and which was a plan for emergency rules like warrantless surveillance and warrantless detention and militarization of Homeland Security.
All those things were planned all through the 80s COG planning by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
Even when Rumsfeld wasn't in the government, he was authorized by Reagan to do his planning.
And why is that important to our history?
Because in 2001, these two men were now in the government, Vice President and Secretary of Defense, the two top people in Washington on September the 11th, 2001, when Bush was down in Florida, George W. Bush.
And what did they do on that day?
They implemented the plans they had been planning for 20 years.
Another major event in American history.
But it's not usually told that way.
Absolutely not.
We implemented it's in the 9 11 Commission report that COG plans were implemented on that day.
And I mean, this is a huge change in our country.
We now have an army command, Northcom, to take charge of America, North America, the way South is in charge of South America and CENTCOM is in charge of Central Asia.
We used to have these, this used to be illegal.
We had the, what did they call those acts?
Posse Comitatus.
Posse Comitatus Acts, which said that yes, if there's a real emergency, you can call up the army to deal with the emergency, but you cannot do it on a permanent basis.
Well, we now do do it on a permanent basis.
We haven't even bothered to repeal the Posse Comitatus Acts.
We are in a state of emergency that was declared on September the 14th.
2001, but if you want, and it's still in force, has to be renewed every year.
Obama did it every year, just as George W. Bush renewed it every year.
If you want to say what are the roots of this, well, there's the legitimate roots that go back to fear of an atomic decapitation of the government back in the Truman era.
So the legitimate COG planning goes back to Truman and Eisenhower, but the illegitimate Use of COG to deal with any emergency you like.
Atomic Fear And Emergency Plans00:02:34
That goes to the Reagan administration and it really goes back to the Saturday night massacre where Rumsfeld and Cheney put their thumbprint on American politics for the first time.
And that leads me to the third thing that happened in the massacre, which doesn't sound as important, but it was important.
That was that.
Nelson Rockefeller was informed he would not be on the ticket in 1976 with Ford.
Well, you would say, well, that doesn't really matter very much because Ford was defeated anyway in 1976.
But let's not forget, that's how Ronald Reagan got involved in federal politics.
And of course, he was defeated in 76.
Right.
So Nelson Rockefeller was removed from the ticket and Dole was added, Bob Dole, which meant you basically had two moderates running.
On the Republican side, which paved the way then for Reagan to create the conservative revolution.
A couple of interesting things to point out here Rockefeller also ended up dead a few years later of a heart attack.
And Ford, we recall, had been a member of the Warren Commission that whitewashed the JFK assassination.
And he was also the only unelected president to ever serve.
Now, oddly enough, they attempted to force Ford on Reagan in 1980 as a running mate.
Quite extraordinary if you think about it, since he had already been president and lost.
And when they couldn't do that, they took Bush, who was the former CIA director, as you mentioned, and he had called Reagan's policies voodoo economics, also a very unusual choice.
But he was put on the ticket, and within two months of Reagan being sworn in, he is shot by John Hinckley Jr.
And he does survive, but oddly enough, there were reports and later confirmed that.
John Hinckley Sr. and the Hinckley family were close friends of the Bushes.
So none of that sits very well.
Now, one last oddity around Bush's association with the assassination of Reagan is that Hinckley's brother, whose name was Scott Hinckley, he was scheduled to have dinner with Neil Bush, who was the son of the vice president, Vice President Bush at the time.
So, truth really is stranger than fiction here.
And I know this sounds extraordinary, but it's all well documented.
Unifying The Deep State Myth00:13:26
And of course, when you take it as we're speaking now with that wide angle lens, And capturing this aspect of the deep state, we can see there's a lot more going on underneath the surface.
Now, from here, then, let's tie up all of the threads from the Halloween massacre straight through the Reagan Revolution and on to 9 11.
Thanks to a lot of things that I write about, both in the road to 9 11 and again in the American deep state, we were on the road to seeing the Reagan Revolution.
In 1980, which among other things set in motion the COG planning, which was.
And so, in a way, the Bush election in 2000 was a pushing forward of the thing because within a year they had implemented those plans.
And now we have the Trump campaign, and I don't fully understand what's going on right now.
I don't think anybody does.
I don't think Trump does.
I don't think the CIA does.
There's.
There is a certain amount of chaos in Washington.
Yes.
From one point of view, there's always chaos in Washington, and there's always conflict in Washington, and it's certainly not the first time that there's been tension between the media and the president.
We have different kinds of media, you know, so there's always going to be some of the media who don't like it.
Sure.
But what I would call the real main, the people who get the most leaks from the CIA, and we can.
At the top, there is the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times.
A little bit further back is the Wall Street Journal, which I would call them mainstream, but they're not as mainstream.
And they have been more pro Trump, but not the way that Fox News and Breitbart have been solidly pro Trump.
Trump is almost, represents the triumph of.
A new kind of alt media, particularly Breitbart.
I never heard of Breitbart until the Trump campaign.
I've only just recently started to read them because they have said so much about the deep state.
And I have to say, you know, I thought, oh, this is going to be terrible.
It's going to be like Fox News.
No, it's not like Fox News.
It's quite intelligent.
Yes.
You have to say about the deep state, two different authors, a man called Barnes and someone who calls himself Virgil, who maybe is the same guy or maybe not.
But what they're saying about the deep state is very smart.
And not only that, they make the mainstream media look rather stupid.
I definitely agree.
And it seems that the mainstream media are trying to stop the conversation about the deep state because it cuts too close to the truth.
So they're making an effort on a daily basis now to say it doesn't exist.
But anyone who's looking at our body politic now knows that there is something very wrong.
And there has been for some time, but especially now.
Yes, something is very wrong.
And talking about the deep state is a way of defining what is wrong.
And now we've got these people fighting back and forth.
Right.
You know, Dan?
Yes.
Sorry.
Oh, yeah, right.
We're going to hear you read from this article on the deep state before we end part one here.
You're doing a much better job at managing time than I am.
Let me say that.
So go ahead and give us the highlights from this deep state article at Breitbart.
I'm going to read, so I won't be sidetracked for a bit.
Okay.
As long as I'm keeping my fingers up like this and quoting.
All right.
And this is from a very good article in Breitbart.
I would advise people who consider themselves left wing Democrats, Bernie Sanders supporters, you probably, if you've never looked at Breitbart, you probably think it's terrible, it's racist, and so on.
But just look at it.
You know, it's a force in this country.
If you want to know what's going on in America, read it.
And you may read something interesting.
And what I'm about to read, I think, is very interesting.
Up go my fingers.
Here we go.
Some in the mainstream media, even now, choose to deny that there is any such thing as a deep state.
You saw, I gave you an example.
Yes, they do.
One such is David Ignatius, veteran columnist for the Washington Post, who wrote on March the 7th that what we're seeing is simply the collision of President Trump and the properly established legal system.
And now we've got a quote within a quote.
This is Breitbart quoting the Washington Post.
Some Trump supporters claim he's facing a secret coup from an intelligence and foreign policy establishment that constitutes a despotic deep state.
But really, Trump is confronting the orderly process we call the rule of law.
All right, that's now he set this up.
And I think he does a pretty good job of making Ignatius look foolish.
Yeah.
I wonder if people already have seen something wrong with what he wrote there, because if you haven't seen it yet, let Breitbart explain it to you.
Virgil, that's Breitbart, thinks that it's rich indeed for Ignatius to insist that there's nothing going on except the proper rule of law.
Why?
Because it was Ignatius' own reporting back on January 12th.
That demonstrated the extra legal power of the deep state.
That was the report that revealed that on December 29th, Michael Flynn, named as Trump's national security advisor in the new administration, had been intercepted talking on the phone to the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergei Kislyak.
And from that first report, events tumbled, and as we all know, Flynn. Resigned from his White House post on February the 13th.
That's how powerful a leak can be.
Now I'm still quoting Breitbart.
Okay.
And yet, a few days after that Ignatius story ran on January 12th, Virgil wondered aloud how he got the information about a private phone call.
Now, how did Ignatius know that?
That is, how did Ignatius learn about the Flynn Kislyak conversation?
He's quoting himself, by the way.
There's a hot link in the story.
This is a story well worth going to look at.
It definitely sounds like it.
Continuing, Virgil wrote back then, that's to say in January, the postman, that's to say Ignatius, won't say other than that he got his information from a quote, a phrase we hear so often, a senior U.S. government official.
Virgil then pointed out that even if it was legal to record the call, yes, it's smart to surveil Russians.
It's not legal to leak such information to the media, especially if it involves an American citizen.
You know, we had a huge flap about this a decade ago with Judith Miller.
And who leaked to Judith Miller?
And somebody, I think, actually went to jail for that and then eventually got pardoned.
But that's how seriously it was taken back then to leak.
Right.
Such disclosure is not legal, Virgil added with a sigh.
But once again, nobody in Washington, D.C. seems to care.
And this is the final phrase from Breitbart.
So we can see in the Flynn case, the power of the deep state wasn't at all about the rule of law.
Absolutely.
Wow.
Well, he's nailed it right there.
It was about just the opposite.
It was.
I mean, so don't get the idea that the mainstream media are real media.
And Breitbart is fake news media.
No.
For years we've had fake news from the mainstream media.
I'm not going to go on and on about this, but starting with the idea that Oswald was a disgruntled loner who wanted fame and glory by killing the president, Oswald actually said, No, I'm just a patsy.
He denied.
He didn't claim, he denied.
But we got the fake news from the mainstream media, and the mainstream media have gone to go.
So fake news.
It's not shocking that fake news has become another meme because we should think about fake news and where is it coming from?
Is it all coming from the Trump side?
By no means.
And in this particular story, I think Breitbart did a better job on reporting about the status of the deep state in the deep state media than the deep state media did.
Absolutely.
That's a very long digression.
I think I started with the Halloween massacre.
Well, this is all really weaving a pattern of the deep state over 50 years or so.
So it's kind of like following a trail.
And now they want things that question them and their activities called fake news.
And they also say the deep state doesn't exist.
Well, I think you've proven here that it definitely exists.
And before we end part one here, my question is with the election of President Trump, are we seeing a split in the deep state?
There are two sides here.
And sometimes.
I wrote quite a long piece in Who, What, Why about the deep state and the West.
Because the media, everybody in the tweets and so on, is talking about Trump versus the deep state.
I tried to show that the deep state is not unified.
It's always being divided, but it's more divided now or more evenly divided now than it used to be.
Fascinating.
Professor, wow, over 50 years of.
Deep state interference in our lives.
We'll end part one here.
Dark Journal subscribers will get part two in their inbox next week.
This is part one of a six part series with Professor Scott and others on the Deep State.
The CIA spring is upon us here, and not all of these episodes will be public, so make sure you subscribe now at darkjournalists.com so you don't miss any of the exciting episodes we have coming up for you.
And the discount makes it easy, of course, now to get this essential information.
Professor Scott's latest book, The American Deep State, is available right there at Amazon.com.
Professor, a big thank you.
From all of us, your work is more important now than ever.
See you in part two.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you for joining me for this fascinating episode on the Deep State CIA Media Matrix with Professor Peter Dale Scott.
You can find more deep interviews, special reports, and documentaries by going to www.darkjournalist.com.
You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive the latest videos.
See you soon.
Subscribe to our newsletter at darkjournalist.com to stay updated on the latest shows.
You've seen the Zapruder film that was taken from up this hill.
JFK Shot From The Front00:00:40
There's a very distinct head snap where the President Kennedy's head is hit backwards.
Doesn't that suggest that the shot would have come from the front?
Well, it would appear to be so.
And we also have Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital saying that he examined the wound in the President's throat and there was an entrance wound.
Yes.
Which would also suggest that the shot had come from the front.
I'm not saying that the shot was not fired from here.
I'm saying we never found anybody that we could connect with it.
But it does suggest that the evidence that we have, it's in both cases rather strong evidence that there was another assassin involved.