All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2025 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
56:29
Diversity Dysfunction with Dr. John A. Gentry
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to Making Sense of the Madness.
We've got a great show lined up for you today.
We have Dr. John A. Gentry.
His latest is diversity dysfunction, the DEI threat to national security intelligence.
You're not going to want to miss it.
Buckle up and get ready to make sense of the madness.
And we are back with Dr. Gentry.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Now, we had you on last year about your last book.
Recently, I've been informed that you were actually let go from Georgetown University because of your beliefs.
So anybody out there that thinks that the quote unquote cancel culture doesn't matter or it's not real or it's gone away, doesn't understand what's really going on in the climate, not only academia, but I would argue a lot of other regions as well.
So kind of take us through the last year and then the run up to this book.
OK, sure.
I was an adjunct professor at Georgetown University for a number of years.
I got interested in the issue of politicization of intelligence and determined, as we'll discuss, I'm sure in considerable detail here today, that DEI policies were...
Part of the reason for that, and as a result of that, that was deemed to be inappropriate belief in writing.
I had written about this in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and that was enough to get my course canceled.
So I'm off doing other things now.
So let's talk about it, because again, last year it was very uncertain.
Whether or not Trump was going to be able to reattain the presidency.
We still have just under two weeks until he's actually sworn in.
They have certified it at this point.
However, we also had two assassination attempts.
And a lot of people are not talking about that to this day.
We really haven't gotten to the bottom of either of them.
Talk about...
Media manipulation, obfuscation, straight out ignoring of a very, you know, an event of much gravity, if you will, is troubling to me.
And I'm not so sure that we will not see attempt number three.
Now, I'd love to get your take on that because when you look at Crooks, you know, the first guy.
You've got all these anomalies.
You've got Ray coming out and saying it could have been shrapnel that hit his ear.
You have this, you know, I would say kid who has no digital footprint.
The FBI, the Secret Service, clearly don't seem to be telling the truth.
I would imagine the Central Intelligence Agency also knows something.
They're not speaking out, etc.
That's one situation.
And then the other guy...
is so connected to this Ukrainian conflict and has a, let's just say, long and storied past that is also confusing that's not being discussed.
And again, the intelligence agencies, at least before this second Trump administration, really haven't said a word.
So I'd love to get your take.
Okay.
I'm mainly a foreign intelligence guy, and so that's really where my expertise is.
CIA would not normally be expected to discuss an issue like assassination domestically because it is by law and policy a foreign intelligence agency.
So it does collect information abroad that has domestic relevance, but in general it gives it to other agencies, particularly the FBI. So I would not expect CIA to be either involved in this or collecting or have any particular information about it, so long as the people who are doing this are domestic Americans who came up with the idea here domestically.
So even though you have Ruth and his connection to Ukraine flying over there, you don't suspect that they would have something on that individual, especially given his arrest post-9-11 in New York where he had a shootout with police officers.
They found explosives in his car, and somehow he didn't do any jail time.
So, I mean, obviously very suspicious, but then when you see him going overseas, when you see him in that Azov Battalion ad, I mean, my goodness.
Well, maybe.
A lot of foreigners are going abroad to fight.
CIA's concern regarding Ukraine is going to be primarily on what the Russians are up to, what NATO is doing, what the Ukrainians are doing.
chances are good they're not looking really at much in the way of foreign fighters, including Americans.
So that would be a low priority item for them, unless there was a compelling reason to begin to look at this individual.
So let's talk about this transition of administrations.
You know, a lot of people are excited about Kash Patel in the FBI. They were excited initially when they talked about Gates being attorney general, etc.
I think there are, you know, RFK Jr., HHS. I think there's going to be some bumps in the road in confirmations.
But when we talk about larger scale policy like DEI, this is something, you know, basically all of these guys in one way or another have spoken out against.
Is there going to be a reformation or an outright gutting of that system across the board?
Or because it's been pushed so much and there's so much money in it, is it going to fight tooth and nail to not only remain, but even try to thrive in this situation?
Well, it surely will fight.
I don't think there's any doubt about that.
And to understand why and how much and so on, I think it makes some sense to To do a little bit of history here, and maybe I can talk just a bit about my own history at the CIA, and this might help explain why I began to look at this so much.
I joined CIA in the late 1970s.
I'd been in the Army and met CIA people there.
After being in graduate school, I decided that...
Gee, you know, being an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency made a lot of sense.
The CIA people I had known were capable people and the idea of analyzing difficult problems and helping presidents and other senior officials make better decisions appealed to me.
So I began to work as an analyst in a culture that was very, very different than what we have now.
The culture at that time was that Analysts were fully expected to have political views, but they were expected to also leave their political views at home.
So politics was simply not done at that point.
That began to change in the 1990s after I left.
Partly I think managers just were not paying so much attention.
Partly society was beginning to change.
But it really, really changed after 9-11.
The agency at President Bush's directive hired a lot of new people.
Many of them were young.
Many of them were coming from colleges where left of center, shall we say, political views were increasingly taught and were increasingly held.
Well, that became important after Barack Obama became president because in 2011, and actually a little bit before that, less formally, he directed that the federal government, including the intelligence community, IC, as we call it, adopt what we now call diversity, equity, and inclusion doctrine, dogma, policy, if you will.
And so as a result of that executive order in 2011, you had senior officials in the intelligence community, particularly the Director of National Intelligence at DNI, Jim Clapper, and then in Obama's second term, CIA Director John Brennan began to push this very, very, very hard.
So their purposeful...
And Brennan has said this explicitly, was to change the organizational culture at CIA and then clapper more generally to the IC as a whole.
Well, that had ramifications because when candidate Trump began to be a credible threat to the Obama third term, Hillary Clinton's presidency, CIA people,
former officers who we call formers, as well as current employees who would do leaking, began to oppose Trump.
And this became pretty politically clear through leaks in Washington Post.
Bad pieces, MSNBC interviews, and so on.
And I, as a former intelligence officer, remembering the culture that I grew up in, said in 2016, what in the world is going on here?
This is just absolutely incompatible with the long-time and very functional culture that I knew.
So I began to look into this and make a long story a little bit shorter.
It became clear that Brennan at CIA had been working so hard at changing the organizational culture of the place to embrace DEI policies that he actually told employees in late 2016,
and in particular after Trump had won in November of 2016. Said, you should be politically active in order to protect the progress.
That's a term he used, the progress on DEI that we have generated in my term.
So the result of that was that you had, at that point, and then through the next four years of the Trump administration, you had former intelligence officers.
Who were free as citizens to speak their minds on most things.
And they did.
Many of them opposing Trump, most of them, who spoke publicly.
And then you had a lot of leaks.
And DEI was a major motive here.
President Trump himself and his appointees did relatively little.
To address that issue, it simply was not something that they looked at.
In the past four years, though, President Biden and his appointees have pushed the Obama agenda much, much, much further.
So they've actually gone way beyond what Brennan and Clapper did in the Obama years.
So DEI is the primary driver of the politicization of the federal government as a whole.
Speaking to James Clapper and John Brennan, never a fan.
Clapper went out there, lied to the American people, said that they weren't being spied on, never got prosecuted, never even got...
Persecuted in the court of public opinion via the mainstream media on that fact.
Then you have Brennan come in.
You talked of these people as formers, and then you discussed a lot of the leaks.
How much power do guys like Clapper and Brennan have after the fact of leaving the agency?
Because obviously we also have this letter.
This open letter of the intelligence community that the Hunter Biden laptop has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
They're very careful with the language they use as to not say anything definitively, but then go on with all this tripe, etc.
So you see power in that realm, but does it go beyond that?
And if so, what is that power?
Well, once they're formers, they do not have organizational power in the sense that they can direct government resources, money, or people.
But they do have significant influence in terms of credibility, in terms of influencing former intelligence officers.
And in the case of the...
The formers in the Trump years, they were hand in glove linked to the mainstream media in opposing Trump.
So you had a lot of the formers, Brandon Clapper, Michael Morrell, a dozen others, John McLaughlin.
For example, writing regularly on Washington Post's op-ed pages, New York Times op-ed pages appearing on MSNBC, writing on Politico, open letters on Politico, and so on.
And the press was very careful to convince the American people that these former intelligence officers, most of whom were foreign, Intelligence officers.
In other words, they were CIA and other people whose responsibilities were foreign in nature, that these people had not only brilliance about most everything, but especially about domestic politics.
So there was a very, very, very strong alliance between the formers, the mainstream media on one hand.
And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, tiered by Adam Schiff, now Senator Schiff, on the congressional oversight perspective.
So you had a very, very, very unusual situation in which the intelligence community, the press, and ostensible oversight personnel were in de facto alliance in opposition to Trump.
We've got to take a break.
The book is Diversity Dysfunction, the DEI Threat to National Security Intelligence.
When we come back, I want to hone in on that media aspect because certainly a lot of the mainstream media is grasping for air, CNN, MSNBC. In particular, after all of this, we'll be back with more Making Sense of the Madness in a moment.
Hey, folks, it's your buddy John Rich here and co-founder of Old Glory Bank.
Let me ask you a question.
Why would you trust your banking with people that hate you?
Well, you shouldn't.
We're building a freedom economy and now we have a pro-America bank.
It's called Old Glory Bank.
Check it out at oldglorybank.com and open yourself an account today.
Old Glory Bank is a full-service FDIC-insured online bank with business and consumer banking and customers in all 50 states.
It takes just 8 minutes to open an account at oldglorybank.com.
Vladimir Putin will remain in office until 2036. Putin is being called bold.
What's your strategy to bring him back to the Stone Age?
Daring.
You won't be able to look away.
How can his kingdom last?
Putin.
Rated R. In select theaters January 10th.
And we are back.
Before we get back to Dr. Gentry, I want to tell you about this new movie about Vladimir Putin.
From Horizon Events comes a bold and daring new thriller, Putin, that tells the inside story of Vladimir Putin's rise to power and imagines how in the near future that rise could come to a shocking end.
Putin is rated R and is in select theaters this Friday.
Dr. Gentry, you mentioned the media.
You mentioned the Washington Post in particular.
We could probably throw the New York Times in there and half a dozen or three dozen other publications and networks.
However, their power of influence has certainly dissipated over the past, I would say, couple decades.
But I think it was accelerated during that Trump administration because this was a guy for the very first time that was the president of the United States calling the mainstream media fake news.
He didn't shy away from it.
He obviously had a very large base, and it was part of the reason that he also got elected.
You know, he was calling out the fact that the media had promoted these wars, etc., and the American people didn't want these things.
Now that we're getting this second term, no matter how much the media tried to push Kamala embarrassed on us, right?
Didn't happen.
Right?
We literally got something that was too big to rig.
To this day.
In fact, I just tweeted about it.
You know, I was in Walmart last night.
And they've got just this, as you're walking to the aisles, this small little, like, kid's book thing.
Now, I remember golden books and the pokey little puppy and all that type of stuff.
No.
This stuff was like civil rights heroes.
And so you had your MLK Jr. No problem with that.
You got your Rosa Parks.
You got your Muhammad Ali.
I'm liking everything I see here until I see Kamala Harris there.
So there is still this push by the mainstream, whether it's media that we just discussed or even to our children, to push these people as heroes and this agenda.
Where are they in reality?
Because they're not as profitable anymore, they're not being listened to as much, and they do have a lot of opposition in the alternative arena.
However, I would argue we're still seeing that arena heavily censored across the board.
Okay, where are they coming from?
I think it's a critical question, and I think it's important when we're thinking about this bigger picture.
To understand that the mainstream media, the universities, increasingly even some businesses, are affected by cultural Marxism.
So the journalist community now, in large measure, has decided that it, they as individuals, and the media as a whole have a responsibility.
To not only inform the public, but to influence the public to think in their way.
So they are pushing an ideological agenda, regardless of whether it makes them any money or not.
And I think the best single example that many of your viewers may be familiar with is the 1619 Project that the New York Times sponsored.
In 2019, recently.
So this was an effort to convince the American people, and these products, these papers, are all over the school systems now, to convince the American people and people abroad that the sole purpose, historically and currently, of the United States of America was to enslave people of African origin.
Legitimate, reputable historians say this is just utter nonsense, and that's about the nicest thing that they say about this.
But it was pushed by the management of the New York Times, and the New York Times managed to get the author of this, Nicole Hannah-Jones, managed to get her a Pulitzer Prize for this nonsense.
So these people are very, very, very strongly pushing this, and they will continue to do so regardless of the Trump win here a couple of months ago or their business situations because they have become basically occupied by people who are ideologically motivated.
So they're very, very strong believers in...
So this kind of reiterates the point that you were making that these people are not going to go quietly and going to continue to push this no matter what.
I would imagine there is going to be a lot of media propaganda against the incoming administration.
So what is the reality on reform?
Obviously, Patel has said a lot of things.
There hasn't been a lot of talk about the Central Intelligence Agency in this administration.
There's been a lot of big names that have been thrown out into other positions.
Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, I think that's the right move.
There's certainly been a lot of announcements that, to a guy like me, I'm happy with.
Now, I'm also not a guy that sits back and goes, oh, gee, golly whiz, great, he's in.
And I want to see actual results.
You know, this president has talked about mass declassification of events, in particular with the 60s assassinations, even talked about 9-11, etc.
I think a lot of that's rhetoric, unfortunately.
I would love to be proven wrong.
How much rhetoric is in the reform of the FBI with Kash Patel?
I'm not sure.
Talk the talk.
Let's see if he's ready to walk the walk in some very, let's say, encumbering circumstances.
What's going to happen with the CIA and DEI in general with these type of agencies?
Are we going to see an actual cut in the bureaucracies and bloat that even surround the intelligence communities?
And does that kind of have to be part of it?
Because yes, we could talk about DEI. Right.
Well, this is a big, big, big issue.
It's societal.
So, again, the Marxists are trying to change society as a whole.
This is what Karl Marx himself advocated.
It's what Lenin did.
Now, with respect to the new Trump administration, I certainly hope personally that Mr. Trump's appointees do, in fact, address things.
He himself and his appointees in the first term actually did very, very, very little.
What he has said, though, now, and what a number of his prospective appointees and literal appointees thus far have said is, in essence, we made a mistake.
We did not address this the way we should have, and we're going to make up for that in the second term.
So what do they need to do?
Well, it seems to me a key way to address this, and let me focus just on the intelligence community here at the moment, given the book and my expertise.
What are the problems that have been caused?
So we know what the policies are, and we know a little bit about some of the implementations of them, but there has been relatively little discussion about what the actual operational implications are.
We talked at the outset about my being canceled.
I was addressing in that article just the claims that were being made.
This new book addresses the issue of operational implications, and I conclude that there are roughly five discernible implications, and these would be the things that you would need to address from a leadership and a policy perspective.
First, This has been a highly divisive set of policies.
There are a lot of people who like DEI for ideological reasons, quite a number of others who like it because it has been materially advantageous to them.
So those would be minorities and women in particular.
There are other people who think this is really a bad idea.
So the upshot here is that you have...
Had a major new ideologically motivated division imposed upon the workforce.
The implication there, the problem there is that the intelligence business requires teamwork.
And so what you've got now is a situation in which people are reluctant to trust each other.
They're very careful about who they talk with, particularly the people who have not bought into the DEI agenda.
So this is damaging the workforce in the sense of its coherence as a meaningful intelligence community.
Secondly, the DEI policies have damaged the quality of the workforce.
So for many, many, many years, CIA and the intelligence community generally were more motivated than much of the rest of the government.
To hire capable people.
It was a real meritocracy.
That has clearly now changed.
You're hiring people on the basis of their demographic identity characteristics.
And we've got lots of evidence that this has been happening.
And we have now even people in senior positions saying this explicitly.
Jerry Lorienti, the chief diversity officer at CIA, said in a discussion with the Defense Department in May of 2024 that's online, you can look this up, he said, in essence, I'm the chief diversity officer.
I look at career boards and the senior executives who pick people for promotion.
Pick people who are not sufficiently DEI advocates, committed to actual activities that push the DEI agenda.
I veto those promotions, and I substitute for those people other folks who are committed to the DEI agenda.
So it is now explicit policy.
To denigrate meritocracy in favor of political correctness in terms of commitment to the DEI agenda.
Thirdly, this has altered on purpose, Brennan said so explicitly, others a little bit less clearly, changed the organizational culture.
So it has in essence added A layer of ideological orthodoxy to the organizational culture of CIA in particular.
This is important because any kind of bias in an organizational culture will affect the quality of analysis.
So I think we can say without question, and I know a few cases here yet, here we haven't gotten all of the...
All the details on this here yet, but we've had now a situation in which we have ideological biasing of analyses.
And again, a few examples are clear.
The longer record is that we know that when organizational cultural biases occur that there are analytic errors.
These generate what we commonly call intelligence failures.
Fourthly, Fourthly, this alteration in the organizational culture has generated the politicization that I talked about.
Again, Brennan is the primary culprit on this, but it has now taken on a life of its own, and you have now people who think that DEI is such a good thing that it needs to be pushed abroad, pushed at.
Trump administration officials and the president himself on the one hand and the public as a whole.
So DEI now is largely responsible for the politicization that we're now quite aware of going back to 2016.
And then the fifth one and the non-trivial one is that all of these things together have generated a lack of confidence in the intelligence community.
And you of all people know about concerns about the ability, the integrity, the honesty and so on of the intelligence community.
I'll just say this.
You know, I don't live in La La Land or imagination world.
I understand we need a military and that we need an intelligence community.
And I, like most, understand the relevance of being numero uno in the world.
However, I'm not a big war guy.
I don't love deception.
I don't like being lied to in real life, let alone on a grandiose scale that has real consequential policies that I'm going to have to adhere to.
And not just policies, but also culturally what I'm going to have to deal with on a day to day basis, because that that DEI, again, we're talking more in the realm of government, but it is seeped in again, like you're in academia.
To so many areas that is impossible to ignore.
We got to take another break.
When we come back, I want to hone in on a term you used a couple of times.
Merit.
Meritocracy.
How in the world do we get back to a meritocracy, not just within government agencies, where I argue you would probably want it the most?
Because, again, you don't have to deal with all these companies if you don't want to.
I mean, there are certain exceptions to that.
We all have the magic box.
It's not like we have great choices there.
But as far as government goes, you really...
Don't have a choice.
There's an old saying.
There's two things that are guaranteed.
Death and taxes.
And pretty much both involve the government at this point.
We're going to take a break.
We're going to come back.
We're going to talk meritocracy.
It is making sense of the madness.
Attention business owners and entrepreneurs.
Patriot TV is launching a brand new TV series showcasing American-made products, and your business could be featured.
Whether you sell your products online on Etsy or Shopify and dream of reaching millions of viewers on smart TVs like Samsung, Sony, TCL, and LG, or apps like Roku, Android, and Apple TV, this is your chance.
We're searching for U.S.-based businesses.
If you've ever wanted to showcase your products on TV like QVC or the Home Shopping Network, Now's your opportunity.
Support our American economy.
Grow your business and be seen by loyal Patriot viewers across the country.
Know someone with a business or have a business yourself?
Don't miss out.
Contact us at supportingpatriots.com today.
Be a guest on this new exciting TV series.
Let's put your American-made products in the spotlight.
Hey folks, it's your buddy John Rich here and co-founder of Oh Glory Bank.
Let me ask you a question.
Why would you trust your banking with people that hate you?
Well, you shouldn't.
We're building a freedom economy and now we have a pro-America bank.
It's called Old Glory Bank.
Check it out at oldglorybank.com and open yourself an account today.
Old Glory Bank is a full-service FDIC-insured online bank with business and consumer banking and customers in all 50 states.
It takes just 8 minutes to open an account at oldglorybank.com.
And we are back with Dr. Gentry.
Let's do it.
How in the world do we get back to a meritocracy?
Because again, I remember a time when I was a kid.
And I really believe, you know, I was a poor kid in a public school, but they're like, if you get good grades, you can get into a good college.
And then if you study hard in that college at whatever you're studying, you can get a good job.
And look, I'm a beauty school dropout, but I did eventually get a job in my field.
And, you know, that job, you know, although I wouldn't credit it so much to the staff, it was being in the computer lab.
It was being around other students.
It was learning the programs.
I don't know why I get that opportunity without college.
Sometimes it is who you know and what you know, if you will.
And I believe in that meritocracy.
I look at the other students to this day that I keep up with and the really good ones that were in that lab with me until 3 in the morning.
Guess what?
They're doing pretty well.
The people that skipped out didn't do the work, not doing so hot.
But at the same time, we've seen a shift away from that in this identity politics era, and you mentioned it within the intelligence community.
So how do we move back towards that meritocracy?
Well, that's a $64,000 question, it seems to me.
And as you rightly say, this is a society-wide issue.
Just to focus on the government part for the time being, it seems to me that job one is to immediately revoke a number of the executive orders that President Biden, and if there are any left from the Obama era, just simply get rid of them.
So there is one that was issued in May of 2021 that is just enormously damaging, creating the diversity offices, creating a requirement upon penalty to agencies and to senior managers if they do not adhere to this, having the Office of Personnel Management and so on oversee this.
And so on.
So the first order of business is to alter the executive orders.
Secondly, you need to go to Congress and check the legislation and get rid of legislation that embeds DEI in law.
Thirdly, you need to get everyone who's in a senior position to look at the internal rules and the internal incentive structures.
In things like promotion criteria and so on, to excise everything that indicates that adhering to DEI standards is a good thing and is career enhancing.
That means getting rid of literally all of the university offices.
I would like to see those people fired.
If that cannot be done, then put them on administrative leave and tell them not to come to work until they quit.
It's better for the government as a whole to have these people sitting at home doing nothing than being in other offices of the government and polluting the cultures of the organizations that they're in.
And then another issue that I think is critical, is to find people who are career government employees who are cognizant of the fact that DEI has been so damaging and enlist them to help the political appointees to change the organizational cultures of their organizations.
One of the big mistakes of earlier rounds of reform in the intelligence business Thinking about the Richard Nixon era, Jimmy Carter era, George W. Bush era, was that the people who came in who were given varying instructions on how to do reform did not actually help themselves by recruiting people from within the
agency.
Credible people who knew the organization could help.
The new team avoid mistakes and so on.
So those are some important things to start with.
I don't think that all of those are going to be accomplishable in four years.
The number of senior people throughout the government is relatively small.
The number of political appointees is relatively small in most agencies, particularly in the intelligence.
And these are insular organizations that have cultures that like to perpetuate themselves.
So the real major challenge, I think, actually will be trying to alter the organizational cultures from above.
Now, when you say that...
That seems like a pretty daunting task, especially when you get outside of just the Central Intelligence Agency.
I was watching a lecture where they were talking about the entire Department of Defense being 3 million-plus people.
It's a lot of people.
And obviously, I mean, you look at the United States, let's say we've got, you know, 350 million people.
I mean, that's, you know, 3 million out of that is pretty large.
And now, obviously, that includes our military branches, et cetera.
But they've also been hit with DEI.
You talked about administrative leave as one of the solutions.
Leveque Ramaswamy and his run talked about mass firings by Social Security number.
That hasn't been floated since he was an actual candidate.
Certainly hasn't.
This is a good thing.
I mean, you know.
When I first heard it, I'd never heard it, and I was like, man, I kind of like that, and I understand the pitfalls of it.
You know, obviously they've given him the doge, whatever that's going to be.
We'll see what that's going to be.
I'm also skeptical on how much you can actually cut so many of those things.
Yes, there's a ton of overspending, jackassery, and things that we don't need, but when it gets down to the basics...
Let's just say we've always got a very robust budget for defense, no matter who's in there, and Trump hasn't backed away from that.
Is there a financial solution to this in any way, shape, or form?
Well, I think there is to some degree within the government.
I mean, to some degree the...
The government is spending a lot by my standards, probably by your standards, a rounding error in a government budget on this.
A big area outside of the intelligence world is federal funding of universities.
Universities are the real creators of the ideology that is now infested, infected.
And this is where you've got a very large number of people who are rationalizing, in essence, sedition under the guise of academic freedom, freedom of speech, and so on.
So one of the things you can do that I think would be helpful with money is to sharply reduce or just eliminate federal funding to universities that do not adhere to all civil rights laws.
DEI is a fundamental violation of most of our Civil Rights Acts.
Most of the Civil Rights Acts prohibit discrimination against anybody on the basis of race or sex.
And that is exactly what DEI is all about.
We've got to take one more break.
When we come back, I'd love to get your take on artificial intelligence and how you think that is going to integrate into all of this.
This is a subject I've been talking about for years, but now we are really seeing real-world products.
That are being put out there commercially.
Obviously, there are military and intelligence capacities to this.
In fact, if you really go through the white papers, artificial intelligence has been one of the key focal points of dominating to dominate in the next generation of warfare.
final segment of the show after this.
Hey folks, it's your buddy John Rich here and co-founder of Oh Glory Bank.
Let me ask you a question.
Why would you trust your banking with people that hate you?
Well, you shouldn't.
We're building a freedom economy and now we have a pro-America bank.
It's called Old Glory Bank.
Check it out at oldglorybank.com and open yourself an account today.
Old Glory Bank is a full-service, FDIC-insured online bank with business and consumer banking and customers in all 50 states.
Takes just 8 minutes to open an account at oldglorybank.com.
I couldn't give anything a higher endorsement.
I would be remiss had I not include Cardio Miracle on my very short list of secrets.
It's the real deal.
It's a real product.
It's not another supplement.
I'm operating about six to eight hours, and I've noticed that being on this Cardio Miracle has made a huge difference.
Since I started taking Cardio Miracle about eight months into it, the benefits have been fantastic.
You know, if I get hungry, then I just have a Cardio Miracle.
Not only is it safe, But it's necessary to take Cardio Miracle to stay well.
This lets me sleep.
It's showing up more energy, more get up and go.
And it's all because of what this company does.
For me as a doctor, Cardio Miracle is a staple.
Cardio Miracle to me is hope in a glass.
To try Cardio Miracle for yourself and get a special fan discount, go to the host page right now and click the link for Cardio Miracle.
Vladimir Putin will remain in office until 2036.
Putin is being called bold.
What's your strategy to bring him back to the Stone Age?
Daring.
You won't be able to look away.
How can his kingdom last?
Putin.
Rated R. In select theaters January 10th.
And we are back with Dr. John A. Gentry.
So when we talk about AI, it's not just a buzz term, right?
These large language models are now out there.
Google has partnered with NASA, the NSA in this arena for some time.
You know, they just put out...
And I don't necessarily agree with this, that they just tapped into parallel universes and kind of have been selling us on that altogether.
But when we talk about real-world GPT-like applications, GPT-4 is extremely impressive.
A lot of these bots are going to be making their way into vast arenas of our world.
And that doesn't even include the video generation, the quote unquote deep fakes, the use of propaganda tools, not only domestically, but foreign, etc.
Obviously going to be utilized by agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency and others.
Where does that fit in to the future?
Because a lot of people are worried that human intelligence will be cut out in some way.
And if you're only left with DEI, human intelligence and AI, kind of a recipe for disaster in my opinion.
I think AI is inescapable.
I tend to be rather skeptical about it.
I know parts of the intelligence community have been pushing this.
My understanding is that They have found that there have been some uses of AI in terms of efficiency gains.
I know one agency in particular found that this was helpful in being able to devote their human brains to actual problems as opposed to just monitoring traffic that was coming in, information coming in.
I think that there is excessive Faith in the claims of AI people.
And so I am worried personally that people will become so enamored of this that they will forget that AI is a tool to help the human brain not replace it.
And the reason I say that in particular is that we've seen what are known as structured analytic techniques.
Which are crude by comparison to modern variants of AI. We have seen them become, in essence, crutches.
So analytic organizations will say, well, gee, all you need to do is use one of these techniques, and that means that you don't have to think.
And that's a problem.
There's another big element here that we haven't talked about at all.
You raised an important element to it, and that is that AI is going to help malicious and even not so malicious people to persuade other people to think and do as they wish.
And we know, again, coming back a century.
The Soviet Union mastered quite a number of techniques to influence people.
The KGB that many of your audience has heard of and its predecessor agencies became very, very good at information operations.
They had a term for it.
It was active measures.
The Russians have...
We have learned from the Soviets and expanded their techniques.
The Internet has been useful there, too.
China has a very robust information campaign, influence campaign, directed against the United States of America.
It's going to make the defense, the recognition of this issue, even more difficult than what we've seen.
And I am convinced that a large number of people in the West, including in the United States, have been taken in by malicious information campaigns by unfriendly countries.
Today, now.
I would probably agree with you.
I mean, again, I'm always so super skeptical of everything, and I always tell people if you don't think that you've been affected by some type of government propaganda or some kind of Bernaysian ad campaign, you're totally ignorant.
I'm sure there are many blind spots in my own world, right?
When we talk about this future, one of the things that comes along with AI is also automation.
Do you foresee a future in which there are less and less people in the most important positions?
And we are not only relying on just AI, but also automated robotics in a lot of these arenas.
I think that is also extremely dangerous if we go along this path of ideologies and not truth.
Who's programming the drones?
Well, again, a good point.
I'm a retired Army reservist.
I'm especially concerned about this in the Defense Department.
I think the intelligence communities are a little bit different.
The mission set is different.
There really will be a continuing need for good human brains, so the meritocracy of insightful people who think clearly, who think well, who are well-educated, who have good experiences in cultures around the world and so on.
I think that's probably going to keep the intelligence community relatively untouched, I won't bet more than a nickel on that one, but I think that's probably the case.
The Defense Department is another story.
You've got faith-based decisions on weapon systems, and you have a hierarchical system of personnel management that means that if an ideology takes over, it can have some really dire effects.
So Union was in China.
They're not unique in authoritarian terms in having party members, so Communist Party members.
Ship being a requirement for enrolling in this general area.
I think we've seen some pressure in that regard coming from the Biden administration now, too.
So the defense is more of a concern in this respect than the intelligence community is, for me at least.
We've got about four minutes left in the broadcast.
We've kind of pontificated about the book, what we'd like to see happen.
What is going to happen?
What are your actual expectations of where we're actually going to go in these next four years, culturally as a society and really structurally as a nation?
Well, good question.
I think we would have been in very serious trouble if Kamala Harris had won because she'd have pushed the Biden agenda.
President Trump and his people are talking well.
And that's good.
So no worries about their general push.
What I do have some concerns about is whether, in fact, they will be able to master the intricacies of the culture, the structure, the incentive systems, and so on, of the federal government and be able then also to put together a coherent program that would address causes as opposed to symptoms of some of the things that we're talking about.
I don't pretend for a minute to be an insider at Mar-a-Lago, but I do see some positive things coming out of people who seem to be close to the president-elect.
So if I had to make a forecast, I would say that we will make some appreciable progress.
And addressing these issues within the federal government and in society more generally, but that the attack by the Marxists will not be defeated in four years, and that it will take a longer effort by hopefully a successor to President Trump who sees things similarly.
What would you like to leave the audience with and where can they get the book?
Okay.
The book is, as you've seen, it's published by Academica Press.
It's also available on Amazon and the usual book-selling places.
I think my last suggestion would be for people to be concerned about Long-term causes, again, I think this problem that we have really does go back to the Marxian effort to penetrate and ultimately overthrow the U.S. government and Western civilization as a whole.
So I would encourage people to look at this bigger picture.
It goes back farther than the arrival of Donald Trump on the political.
And it's got a lot of energy and legs on it.
And so everything we do to address this problem should really be looked at from the standpoint of trying to remedy causes, not just address symptoms.
Dr. Gentry, thank you so much for joining us.
And thank you guys for watching this show five days a week here at Patriot.TV, where the truth lives.
Remember to this guy, it is not about left to right.
It is always about right and wrong.
▲
Export Selection